Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries

Supreme Court of the United States · 2019 · Torts

TortsMaritime lawNegligenceProducts liabilityDuty to warnmaritime tortduty to warnbare-metal defense

Facts

The defendant manufacturers produced pumps, blowers, turbines, and similar equipment for Navy ships used by Kenneth McAfee and John DeVries. The equipment required asbestos insulation or asbestos parts to function as intended, and when used as intended it released asbestos fibers into the air. Much of the equipment was delivered to the Navy in bare-metal form, after which the Navy added the asbestos. McAfee and DeVries allegedly developed cancer from asbestos exposure, and their families claimed the equipment manufacturers negligently failed to warn of the asbestos danger in the integrated products.

Issue

In a maritime tort case, does a product manufacturer have a duty to warn when its product is delivered without asbestos but requires later incorporation of asbestos or another dangerous part for the integrated product to function as intended? More specifically, is the manufacturer protected by the bare-metal defense simply because it did not itself make, sell, or install the later-added part?

Rule

In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product's users will realize that danger.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Harbor Forge Marine made engine housings for commercial vessels in Seattle, Washington. The housings could operate only if fitted with a heat shield, and Harbor Forge's specifications called for a ceramic shield that released toxic dust during ordinary maintenance; the company knew deck mechanics would not recognize that risk from looking at the finished unit.

In a maritime negligence suit by an injured mechanic, is Harbor Forge most likely subject to a duty to warn?

Explanation. In the maritime context, the manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know the integrated product is likely dangerous for intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe users will realize the danger. The majority rejected both a pure foreseeability rule and an absolute bare-metal defense.