Simonetta v. Viad Corp.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington considers whether a manufacturer may be liable for failing to warn about asbestos hazards associated with insulation made and supplied by another manufacturer. The court holds that, under common-law negligence and strict-liability principles, the duty to warn is generally limited to parties in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product. Because Viad did not manufacture, sell, or supply the asbestos insulation, the court reverses the Court of Appeals and holds that Viad had no duty to warn.

Holdings

1. A manufacturer's duty to warn under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 is limited to parties in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product. Because Viad did not manufacture, sell, or supply the asbestos insulation, it had no duty to warn about the hazards of that insulation.
2. A manufacturer outside the chain of distribution of the product containing the hazardous substance is not strictly liable for failing to warn of that substance's dangers when the manufacturer's own product functioned as designed and was sold without the other product.

Questions Presented

1. Whether, under Washington common-law negligence principles and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, a manufacturer of an evaporator owed a duty to warn about asbestos hazards arising from insulation manufactured and supplied by another entity.
2. Whether, under Washington common-law strict liability and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, the evaporator manufacturer could be liable for failing to warn about asbestos hazards associated with another manufacturer's insulation.

Disposition

reversed