Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals recently reconsidered the duty to warn of asbestos-containing replacement parts that the defendants did not manufacture or place in the stream of commerce in Philip Royce May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al, No. 2670 (Md. App. Oct. 3, 2014). The May decision reaffirmed the decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App. 1, cert. denied, 394 Md. 494 (1998), where the Court of Special Appeals aligned with other courts that have found that it is “not only equitable” to limit liability to those in the chain of distribution, but that doing so “preserves a bright line in the law of strict liability” that, generally, a person is liable only for harm caused by products that it manufactures or otherwise introduces into the stream of commerce.
Background
Plaintiff Philip Royce May served as a machinist’s mate on Navy ships for nearly 20 years between 1956 and 1976. Among his duties was replacing gaskets and “packing” in the pumps that circulated superheated steam throughout a vessel’s steam propulsion system. The asbestos-containing replacement parts and packing, when machined and shaped for use, produced airborne respirable dust. The defendants – Air & Liquid Systems Corp., Warren Pumps LLC, and IMO Industries, Inc. – manufactured the steam pumps on which Mr. May would replace the gaskets and packing. It is undisputed that Mr. May was exposed to asbestos only because of his exposure to replacement parts that the defendants neither made nor placed in the stream of commerce. Mr. May was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in January 2012.
Mr. May and his wife filed suit against the defendant-manufacturers in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. At the close of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that, as a matter of Maryland law, they had no duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor placed into the stream of commerce. The circuit court granted the defendants’ motions, and the plaintiffs noted a timely appeal.
Discussion
The Mays argued that the defendant-manufacturers had a duty to warn because it was “foreseeable” that the replacement parts would be incorporated into the defendants’ pumps. The Court of Special Appeals relied expressly on its own opinion in the Wood case, in which the widow of an automotive garage employee claimed that her late husband contracted mesothelioma and died...
