Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: October 10, 2018
Decided: March 19, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito

Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 10, 2018, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, holding that "a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger."[1]

The case came on a writ of certiorari to the 3rd Circuit.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The widows of two United States Navy sailors who were exposed to asbestos while they were serving on Navy ships argued that their husbands developed cancer because of the exposure. The manufacturers argued that they were not liable for the sailors’ deaths because they did not make or supply the asbestos-containing components. The United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled “that, under maritime law, a manufacturer of a product that does not contain asbestos can still be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos in another product if the manufacturer should reasonably foresee that its conduct would lead to the injuries,” according to SCOTUSblog.[3][4]
  • The issue: Can products-liability defendants be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by products that they did not make, sell, or distribute?[5]
  • The outcome: The Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, holding that "a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[6]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 19, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 3rd Circuit's ruling
    • October 10, 2018: Oral argument
    • May 14, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • January 31, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • October 3, 2017: Third Circuit ruled that the manufacturers could be held liable for the harm caused by the asbestos, even though the manufacturer did not produce the product containing the asbestos.

    Background

    Roberta G. Devries and Shirley McAfee, the widows of two United States Navy sailors who were exposed to asbestos while they were serving on Navy ships, argued that their husbands developed cancer because of the exposure. Devries and McAfee sued the “manufacturers of ‘bare metal’ ship components, or parts that were made and shipped before any asbestos-containing insulation materials were added,” according to Oyez.[4]

    The manufacturers argued that they were not liable for the sailors’ deaths because they did not make or supply the asbestos-containing components. The United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled “that, under maritime law, a manufacturer of a product that does not contain asbestos can still be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos in another product if the manufacturer should reasonably foresee that its conduct would lead to the injuries,” according to SCOTUSblog.[3]

    The manufacturers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case on February 28, 2018.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[5]

    Questions presented:
    • Can products-liability defendants be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by products that they did not make, sell, or distribute?

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]

    Transcript

    • Read the oral argument transcript here.

    Outcome

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court. The court affirmed the judgment of the 3rd Circuit, holding that "a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger."[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote,

    “ We agree with the plaintiffs. 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. The District Court did not apply that test when granting summary judgment to the defendant manufacturers. Although we do not agree with all of the reasoning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, we affirm its judgment requiring the District Court to reconsider its prior grants of summary judgment to the defendant manufacturers.[8] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the dissenting justices agreed with the Court's decision to reject the methods used in the 3rd Circuit's ruling. "Our disagreement arises only in what comes next," he wrote.

    “ Immediately after rejecting the court of appeals’ approach, the Court proceeds to devise its own way of holding the bare metal manufacturers responsible for later-added asbestos. ... The Court's new three-part standard surely represents an improvement over of appeals’ unadorned 'fore-seeability' offering. But, respectfully, it seems to me to suffer from many same defects the Court itself has identified.[8] ”

    Text of the opinion

    • Read the full opinion here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, March 19, 2019
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries," accessed September 26, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 SCOTUSblog, "Two new grants, one CVSG today," May 14, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Oyez, "Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries," accessed September 26, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1104 Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries," accessed September 26, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "question" defined multiple times with different content
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries," accessed September 26, 2018
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, argued October 10, 2018
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Air_and_Liquid_Systems_Corp._v._Devries&oldid=9117242"