Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., JOHNS-MANVILLE
| Decision Date | 23 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | JOHNS-MANVILLE,No. 82-3388,82-3388 |
| Citation | 752 F.2d 124 |
| Parties | Mrs. Emma Jean HALPHEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.SALES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Strong, Pipkin, Nelson, Parker & Bissell, John G. Bissell, Michael L. Baker, Beaumont, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Kermit A. Doucet, Lafayette, La., Helm, Pletcher, Hogan & Burrow, Stephen W. Hanks, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Robert S. Rooth, New Orleans, La., for amicus curiae Owens-Illinois, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; Edwin F. Hunter, Jr., Judge.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, TATE, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Consistent with our recent determination to certify certain questions to the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., Et Al., 727 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1984), acting en banc, we now recall the panel opinion in this case published at 737 F.2d 462, in order that we might certify the essential question raised in this litigation to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. It is the judgment of the en banc court that the direction and guidance of Louisiana's highest court on controlling and dispositive questions of Louisiana law should be sought pursuant to the provisions of Rule XII of the Louisiana Supreme Court Rules.
This diversity case is one of a multitude of asbestos cases, presently filed and reasonably anticipated, in which injured plaintiffs, or their survivors, have or will seek damages for injuries associated with exposure to asbestos. Emma Jean Halphen is such a plaintiff. At trial she was awarded damages as a consequence of her husband's illness and death from malignant mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos. On appeal, a divided panel of this court affirmed, holding that "in a strict products liability case, the manufacturer is presumed to know the defects of its product" and that the "injured party need only show that the injury would reasonably be foreseeable to one with knowledge (actual or imputed) of the defect." 737 F.2d at 465. The dissent viewed the case as a notice case and was of the view that although under Louisiana law a manufacturer is presumed to know of the design or manufacturing defects, it is not liable for failing to warn of a potential danger unless it knew or should have known of the danger. 737 F.2d at 470.
Because of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
...establishes that it did not know and reasonably could not have known of the inherent danger posed by its product? Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 752 F.2d 124, 755 F.2d at 393 (5th Cir.1985) (en Response to Certified Question Having granted certification, we respond by (1) stating th......
-
Tannebaum v. Yale Materials Handling Corp., Civ. AMD 97-3398.
...law. See Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 737 F.2d 462, 466 (5th Cir.1984), opinion withdrawn and question certified, 752 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1985), certified question answered, 484 So.2d 110 (La.1986), certified question conformed to, 788 F.2d 274 (5th Cir.1986). Louisiana's 1988 prod......
-
Blackston v. Shook and Fletcher Insulation Co.
...v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 737 F.2d 462 (5th Cir.1984), vacated en banc, and questions certified to state supreme court, 752 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.1985), the court did not require plaintiffs to produce direct proof of place and time of exposure. An examination of the facts in both cases rev......
-
Brown v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...establishes that it did not know and reasonably could not have known of the inherent danger posed by its product? Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 752 F.2d 124, 755 F.2d at 393 (5th Cir.1985) (en In an effort to fully and completely answer the question, the Supreme Court set out to ca......
-
Antitrust Division Relationships with State Attorneys General
...1985) (forbidding disclosure of HSR filings to state attorney general); Mattox v. FTC, 752 F.2d 116, 124 (5th Cir. 1985) (same). 78. 752 F.2d at 124. 79. 771 F.2d at 40. 80. See Antitrust Div. Manual , supra note 60, at VII-19-VII-20. 81. See id. at VII-20. 82. See id . 83. See id . 84. See......
-
Antitrust Division Relationships with State Attorneys General
...1985) (forbidding disclosure of HSR filings to state attorney general); Mattox v. FTC, 752 F.2d 116, 124 (5th Cir. 1985) (same). 69. 752 F.2d at 124. 70. 771 F.2d at 40. 71. See ANTITRUST DIV.MANUAL, supra note 54, at VII-22. 72. See id . 73. See id . at VII-23. 74. See id . 288 DOJ Civil A......