Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp., JOHNS-MANVILLE

Citation795 F.2d 301
Decision Date14 April 1986
Docket NumberJOHNS-MANVILLE,RAYBESTOS-MANHATTA,INC,No. 85-5538,85-5538
PartiesMarshall A. SMITH, et al. v.CORPORATION, et al. HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORP., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants. and HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN, INC. and BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v., et al., Third-Party Defendants. Michael CEISWICH, et al. v.CORPORATION, et al. HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORP., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al. and BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. ADVOCATE MINES, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants. Joseph ARDIN and Rose Ardin, his wife, et al. v.CORPORATION, et al. HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORP., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants. and BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al., Third Party Defendants., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. ADVOCATE MINES, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants. Betty P. ESPOSITO, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert I. Esposito, deceased v.CORPORATION, et al. HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORP., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants. and BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. ADVOCATE MINES, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants. Watts CHERNESKY and Mary Chernesky, his wife, et al. v.CORPORATION, et al. HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORP., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al., Third-Party Defendants. and BELL ASBESTOS MINES, LTD., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., et al.,
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Scott D. Austin, Trial Atty. (argued), Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Greelish, U.S. Atty., Harold J. Engel, Acting Director, Torts Branch, Mary Catherine Cuff, Chief Civil Div., Joseph B. Cox, Jr., Asst. Director Michael S. Giannotto (argued), David Booth Beers, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D.C., Joseph P. LaSala, Joseph F. Lagrotteria, Robinson, Wayne, Levin, Riccio, & La Sala, Newark, N.J., for appellee Brinco Mining Ltd. now Cassiar Mining Corp.

Torts Branch, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Alexander P. Waugh, Jr. (Argued), William J. Brennan, III, Robert D. Gilbert, Smith, Stratton, Wise, Heher & Brennan, Princeton, N.J., for appellee Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd.

Peter W. Sachs, Sachs & Sachs, Holmdel, N.J., for appellee Hollingsworth & Vose Co.

Kathleen F. Moran, Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski, Livingston, N.J., for appellee, Raymark Industries.

Before SEITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

Before HUNTER, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BECKER, Circuit Judges *.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JAMES HUNTER, III Circuit Judge:

This case requires us to decide whether the General Service Administration's decision to sell surplus asbestos "as is," without warnings or warranties, falls within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a) (1982). Jurisdiction before the district court was based on the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-80 (1982). Appellate jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) (1982). The district court determined that the government could be held liable for the asbestos sales under the FTCA. Because we conclude that the discretionary function exception protects the government's conduct, we will reverse.

I.

These consolidated cases were originally filed by approximately eighty present or former employees of the Manville, New Jersey, plant of the Johns-Manville Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that they or their decedents had suffered injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos products supplied by defendants, including defendants Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd. and Cassiar Mining Corporation. 1 Certain defendants filed cross-claims and third-party claims against the United States for indemnity and contribution on the grounds that the government also had supplied asbestos to the Johns-Manville plant.

In December 1982, the government moved for dismissal of the third-party claims. The government argued that the General Service Administration's failure to place warnings on the asbestos was conduct protected from tort liability under the FTCA's discretionary function exception. The magistrate who heard the motion concluded that the exception did not apply, and recommended that the district court deny the government's motion entirely. In July 1984, the district court determined that the facts of the case would not support the asbestos companies' claims for indemnification, and accordingly granted the government's motion with regard to that theory. The court agreed with the magistrate's report that the exception was inapplicable, however, and denied the government's motion to dismiss the third-party claims for contribution.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the record failed to reveal specific congressional directions to sell the asbestos without warnings. The court also found that the government did not affirmatively make a policy decision concerning warning labels. From these findings, the court reasoned that the decision not to warn was not the type of conduct Congress intended to protect from tort claims by the discretionary function exception, because "to the extent an exercise of discretion entered the decision to warn, it was not that of a governmental policy maker, but merely that of a commercial supplier."

In January 1985, the government moved for reconsideration of its motion in the wake of our decision in General Public Utilities Corp. v. United States, 745 F.2d 239 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1227, 84 L.Ed.2d 365 (1985), the first Third Circuit case interpreting the Supreme Court's construction of the discretionary function exception in United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense, 467 U.S. 797, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) ("Varig Airlines"). The court denied the motion for reconsideration, but granted the government's alternative motion for certification as an interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). We granted the government's motion for certification on August 7, 1985. 2

The facts in this case are undisputed. Between 1966 and 1975, the United States supplied surplus asbestos to the Manville facility from government strategic material stockpiles. The General Services Administration ("GSA") managed the disposal program pursuant to the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act ("Stock Piling Act"), 50 U.S.C. Sec. 98-98h-1 (1976). 3 Section 98b(e) of the Stock Piling Act governs the disposal of surplus strategic materials, and provides, in part:

Sec. 98b. Purchase, storage, refinement, rotation, and disposal of materials

The Administrator of General Services shall--

....

(e) dispose of any materials held pursuant to this subchapter which are no longer needed because of any revised determination made pursuant to section 98a of this title, as hereinafter provided. No such disposition shall be made until six months after publication in the Federal Register and transmission of a notice of the proposed disposition to Congress.... Such notice shall state the reasons for such revised determination [of the necessary amount of strategic materials], the amounts of the materials proposed to be released, the plan of disposition proposed to be followed, and the date upon which the material is to become available for sale or transfer. The plan and date of disposition shall be fixed with due regard to the protection of the United States against avoidable loss on the sale or transfer of material to be released and the protection of producers, processors, and consumers against avoidable disruption of their usual markets....

50 U.S.C....

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Nazzaro v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • January 28, 2004
    ...1427 (1953); the General Service Administration's choice to sell surplus asbestos without warranties or warnings, Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp., 795 F.2d 301, 304 (3d Cir.1986); and the decision by the Commissioner of the FDA to bar the importation of Chilean fruit into the United States, F......
  • Sánchez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 14, 2012
    ...the FTCA for alleged breach of a duty to warn; non-military government agencies have been so shielded as well. See Smith v. Johns–Manville Corp., 795 F.2d 301 (3d Cir.1986) (General Service Administration's decision to sell surplus asbestos “as is” without warnings or warranties fell within......
  • Aguehounde v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 1995
    ...function"). Appellant's suggested approach of isolating each component of a decision is simply not required. See Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp., 795 F.2d 301, 308 (3d Cir.1986) ("The position that agency decisions can be broken down into component parts is fundamentally at odds with the Cour......
  • Shenango Inc. v. Apfel
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • September 24, 2002
    ...the appropriate standard of review is the same as that for a motion for summary judgment, i.e., plenary review. Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp., 795 F.2d 301, 306 (3d Cir.1986). 7. We also held in Unity Real Estate that because of the concurrence and dissent in Eastern Enterprises, "we are bo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT