May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 5, Sept. Term, 2015.,5, Sept. Term, 2015.
• Citation: 129 A.3d 984,446 Md. 1
• Parties: Ruth Belche MAY, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Philip Royce May v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., etc., et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

446 Md. 1

129 A.3d 984

Ruth Belche MAY, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Philip Royce May

v.AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., etc., et al.

No. 5, Sept. Term, 2015.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 18, 2015.

Motion for Reconsideration by Air & Liquid Industries Granted in Part Feb. 19, 2016.

Motion for Reconsideration by Warren Pumps and IMO Industries Denied Feb. 19, 2016.

Jonathan Ruckdeschel (Z. Stephen Horvat, Jacqueline G. Badders, The Ruckdeschel Firm, Ellicott City; Chris Norris, Jeffrey O'Connell, The Nemeroff Law Firm, Dallas, TX), on brief, for Petitioner.

Laurie J. Helper (Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, LLP, San Francisco, CA), F. Ford Loker (Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., Baltimore, MD), Thomas M. Goss, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, Baltimore, MD; Joel D. Newport (Moore & Jackson, LLC, Towson, MD), on brief, for Respondents.

Hugh F. Young, Jr., Esquire, Reston, VA, Robert Dale Klein, Esquire, Michael S. Rubin, Esquire, Wharton, Levin, Ehrmantraut

& Klein, PA, Annapolis, MD, for Amicus Curiae brief of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.

Mark A. Behrens, Esquire, Christopher E. Appel, Esquire, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae brief of Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers' Alliance of Maryland, Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers' American Tort Reform Association, American Insurance Association, Proper Casualty Insurers Association of America, and NFIB Small Business Legal Center.

Argued before: BARBERA, C.J., BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, WATTS and GLENN T. HARRELL, JR. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

ADKINS, J.

In this products liability case, the content of a sixty-some year old instruction manual for a heavy piece of naval equipment may be the quintessential smoking gun. We consider failure to warn claims in strict liability and negligence brought by the widow of a naval machinist against manufacturers of heavy-duty pumps. We are asked to determine the interesting question of whether a manufacturer can be liable for failing to warn about the risk of harm from exposure to asbestos-containing replacement parts that it neither manufactured nor placed into the stream of commerce, but which were integral to the operation of its product.

As this case reaches us after a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, "we consider whether the plaintiffs offered sufficient admissible evidence in their opposition to summary judgment to allow a jury to consider their claims of negligence and strict liability against the corporate defendants." Beatty v. Trailmaster Prods., Inc., 330 Md. 726, 739, 625 A.2d 1005, 1012 (1993). We state the facts as alleged by the plaintiffs.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Ruth Belche May ("Petitioner") is the widow of a machinist mate, Philip Royce May ("May"), who served on active duty in the United States Navy ("Navy") for 20 years, from 1956 until 1976. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., Warren Pumps LLC, and IMO Industries, Inc. ("Respondents") manufactured steam pumps that were sold to the Navy. The Navy used these pumps to move extremely hot and highly pressurized steam through the ship's steam propulsion system. In accordance with the Navy's specifications, the Respondents' pumps contained asbestos gaskets and packing when the Respondents first delivered the pumps to the Navy.¹ Asbestos was used in gaskets and packing as an insulating material because it could withstand the extremely high temperatures and pressures produced by the steam propulsion system.

As a machinist mate, May worked in the engine room of Navy ships. May testified that he would go to the log room and consult the instruction manuals on any piece of equipment he serviced.² It is undisputed that Respondents' manuals did not contain any warnings regarding the danger of inhaling asbestos dust or directions to wear protective gear.³ May's duties aboard Navy ships included replacing asbestos gaskets and packing in the pumps of the ships' steam propulsion systems. This work exposed him to airborne asbestos fibers.

When removing gaskets, May used tools that generated respirable dust. When installing a new gasket, May would have to shape it into the proper size, which also generated respirable dust. He testified that he had removed "[m]any gaskets, numerous gaskets, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of gaskets."

May, however, was never exposed to the asbestos gaskets and packing that these Respondents used in their products. He was exposed only after other Navy mechanics, who performed maintenance on Respondents' pumps, replaced Respondents' gaskets and packing with new components acquired from third parties—also containing asbestos.

In January 2012, May learned he was suffering from mesothelioma

, a form of cancer that is commonly caused by asbestos exposure.⁴ May and Petitioner filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City ("the Circuit Court") in March 2012, naming numerous defendants, including the Respondents.⁵ After completion of discovery, the Respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground that, as a matter of law, they had no duty to warn of the dangers of the asbestos-containing replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor placed into the stream of commerce. The Circuit Court granted the motions and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 219 Md.App. 424, 426–27, 100 A.3d 1284, 1285 (2014).⁶

Petitioner appealed and we granted her Petition for Writ of Certiorari.⁷ Petitioner presented three questions for review, which we simplify into the following questions:

(1) Can Respondents be liable in negligence for injuries sustained by May?

(2) Can Respondents be strictly liable for injuries sustained by May?

Because we answer yes as to both questions, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand for further proceedings.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A circuit court may grant a motion for summary judgment if there is no dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maryland Rule 2–501(f). "The court is to consider the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and consider any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the undisputed facts against the moving party." Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Md., Inc., 435 Md. 584, 598, 80 A.3d 269, 276 (2013). Because a circuit court's grant of summary judgment hinges on a question of law, not a dispute of fact, an appellate court is to review whether the circuit court was legally correct without according deference to that court's legal conclusions.Id.

DISCUSSION

In Twombley v. Fuller Brush Co., 221 Md. 476, 491–94, 158 A.2d 110, 118–19 (1960), we first recognized that a duty to warn can form the basis of a products liability action, and further developed the framework for this claim in Moran v. Faberge, Inc., 273 Md. 538, 332 A.2d 11 (1975). In Moran, we articulated the balancing of interests that is involved, and emphasized the role of warnings as a low cost precaution:

To begin with we note that a manufacturer's duty to produce a safe product, with appropriate warnings and instructions when necessary, is no different from the responsibility each of us bears to exercise due care to avoid unreasonable risks of harm to others. 2 Fowler Harper & Fleming James, The Law of Torts, § 28.3 (1956); William Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 31 (4th ed.1971). Whether any such unreasonable risk exists in a given situation depends on balancing the probability and seriousness of harm, if care is not exercised, against the costs of taking appropriate precautions . 2 Harper & James, supra, §§ 16.9, 28.4; Restatement (Second), Torts §§ 291 –93, 298 (1965). However, we observe that in cases such as this the cost of giving an adequate warning is usually so minimal, amounting only to the expense of adding some more printing to a label, that this balancing process will almost always weigh in favor of an obligation to warn of latent dangers, if the manufacturer is otherwise required to do so.

Id. at 543–44, 332 A.2d at 15 (emphasis added).

Failure to warn claims may be brought under a negligence or strict liability theory. Robert D. Klein, A Comparison of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability and the Maryland Law of Products Liability, 30 U. Balt. L.Rev. 273, 288 (2001) ("In Maryland, failure-to-warn cases have either proceeded as negligence causes of action or ... as strict liability claims...."); see Gourdine v. Crews, 405 Md. 722, 743, 955 A.2d 769, 782 (2008) ("Duty, thus, is an essential element of both negligence and strict liability causes of action for failure to warn.").

If the asbestos dust that May inhaled was from the original gaskets and packing in the pumps sold by Respondents, this would be a straightforward negligent and strict liability failure to warn case. The novelty of this case is that Petitioner asserts liability against Respondents even though May was never exposed to asbestos dust from the original gaskets and packing. The original asbestos gaskets and packing that Respondents incorporated into the pumps they sold to the Navy had already been replaced by other gaskets and packing supplied by third parties long before May even began working for the Navy in 1956. This issue has been addressed in only a handful of cases, which we will discuss, infra.

Relying on Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md.App. 1, 36 n. 7, 703 A.2d 1315, 1331 n. 7 (1998), Respondents contend that a manufacturer has a duty to warn only of products that it has placed into the stream of commerce "regardless of whether [its] duty to warn sounds in negligence or strict liability." But their argument depends quite heavily on the assumption that a component part (asbestos gaskets and packing) should be separated from the product sold (the pump). In other words, Respondents see the product sold as the asbestos gaskets and packing, not the pump into...