• Home
  • About Us
  • The Team
  • Office Locations
  • Newsroom
  • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  •   Spanish
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY State College, PA 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  •   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

State College, PA

844-777-2529

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

State College, PA

1376 Haymaker Road

Philadelphia, PA

PAinfo@lockslaw.com

Cherry Hill, NJ

NJinfo@lockslaw.com

New York, NY

NYinfo@lockslaw.com

State College, PA

info@lockslaw.com

Blog

New York Court of Appeals Rules on Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn for a Third Party Product in an Asbestos Case

 

New York’s highest court issued a seminal decision on June 28, 2016, upholding verdicts against Crane Co. in two mesothelioma cases where Crane Co. was found liable for the use of asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties on its valves. See link to decision here.

 

Mr. Ronald Dummitt was exposed to asbestos as a Navy boiler technician, including when he worked on Crane Co. valves, changing asbestos-containing gaskets and packing designed and manufactured by companies other than Crane Co. Similarly, Mr. Gerald Suttner was exposed to asbestos while working as a pipe fitter at General Motor’s Tonawanda Engine Plant, where he changed asbestos-containing gaskets and packing on Crane Co. valves that included gaskets and packing made by third parties.

 

Inserting the concept of “economic necessity” into the analysis of the duty to warn, the Court of Appeals found that the manufacturer of a product has a duty to warn of the danger arising from the known and reasonably foreseeable use of its product in combination with a third-party product which, “as a matter of design, mechanics or economic necessity, is necessary to enable the manufacturer’s product to function as intended”.

 

The Court noted that a manufacturer’s superior ability to garner information about dangerous uses of its products, extends to combined uses with other manufacturer’s products, and that the manufacturer of a durable item (such as Crane Co.’s valves) used in conjunction with a fungible product (such as asbestos gaskets and packing) was typically in the best position to warn the users of the two products together of the dangers of that use.

 

In analyzing its prior decision in Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289, the Court found that its decision here was consistent, in that implicit in the Rastelli decision was the recognition that a manufacturer’s duty to warn of combined use of its product with another product depended “in part on whether the manufacturer’s product can function without the other product”, and that it would be unfair to allow a manufacturer to avoid the minimal cost of including a warning about the dangers of joint use where the manufacturer knew that the combined use was “necessary and dangerous”.  The Court noted that the justification for a duty to warn “becomes particularly strong” where the manufacturer (such as with Crane Co. in these cases) intended that the customer engage in the “hazardous combined use of the products at issue”.

 

The crux of this decision lies in the Court’s conclusion that “where evidence supports an inference that the third-party product is the only product that both enables the intended function of the manufacturer’s product and is available at a cost that is reasonably sustainable for the average individual or entity that purchases the manufacturer’s product for the use at issue, the manufacturer has a duty to warn of the perils of the economically necessary and foreseeable combined use of its product with the third-party product”.

 

Crane Co. issued a comment on its website expressing disappointment at the decision and stated its opinion that the Court of Appeals has adopted a new test that considers “economic necessity” in determining a manufacturer’s duty to warn about potential hazards of third party products used in combination with its own product, and that this new test will now have to be interpreted and applied by the lowers courts.

 

This decision is a victory for the victims of asbestos-related diseases in New York State and marks a blow to the “bare metal defense”, which had been gaining some ground in courts nationally. The Court considered factors such as Crane Co.’s specification of the use of asbestos-based sealing components in its technical drawings for its valves, the fact that it packaged its valves with asbestos-containing products, the fact that it marketed asbestos-containing “Cranite” that could be used as a replacement for the original gasket and packing material, and that it assisted in the revision of the “Naval Machinery” manual which specified that Navy employees install asbestos-based gaskets on valves on Navy ships in reaching its decision. In future cases, facts supporting the manufacturer’s recommendations and expectations that asbestos-containing third party products be used on their products, in addition to the availability of alternatives to asbestos-containing components and the cost of those alternatives will be of paramount importance in establishing a duty to warn.

Janet Walsh

Guest Author
July 6, 2016 Janet Walsh

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

Who is Liable for Zika at the 2016 Olympic Games?

Next Entry

Videos Are Powerful, and Police Dash Cam Videos Are Discoverable

Recent Entries

  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"
  • Dacthal Pesticide Ban: EPA Falls Short Again, Inaction Fails to Protect the Unborn 

Archive

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
info@lockslaw.com

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.