How exactly does a manufacture go about warning anyone about the risk provided by a part incorporated into a navy ship that has been modified by a third party? The part manufacturer has no idea who will be exposed to such a part since assignments of personnel to ships is not part of their jobs. You can’t stamp a warning on the part because such a warning would be covered by the asbestos or other material added to the part after it is out of the manufacturers control. Does the navy in the case avoid any responsibility for overseeing the part’s modification and election to expose the personnel to the asbestos the manufacturer was not in a position to be aware of? It seems like the manufacturer is going to be harmed no matter what action it takes, even when providing warnings in totally impossible to do.
I understand your points but given the litigious environment today, companies would be smart to designate someone to review any product used, manufactured, controlled or marketed that could have any relationship with asbestos to identify possible exposures. I know I have been aware of the dangers of asbestos exposure for some years now; how can any company doing business with the Navy not know that too. This may be hindsight of course but now that the cat is out of the bag, I would err on the side of caution. Saving money at the expense of safety doesn’t add up.
I know of the dangers of asbestos without having come in contact with it. Given the litigious environment today, I can’t see how any company that does business with anything related to asbestos isn’t aware of the possibility of a safety issue. Prudence should be the basis of a company’s responsibilities to its clients as well as its employees and contractors.
Defense Department suppliers are required to comply with detailed military specifications with respect to all elements of their products — including labelling — i.e. “warnings..” A supplier is not at liberty to deviate from those specifications because it believes it is appropriate to warn members of the armed forces of potential dangers associated with the use of the product as specified by the military.
That being the case, Defense Department suppliers are protected from liability by what is known as the “military contractor defense.” Having read only summaries of the majority and dissenting opinions, I don’t know why the military contractor defense was not applied in this case.
The Court appears, however, to have adopted a “maritime law” exception to the military contractor defense. If that is, in fact, the case, the Navy’s procurement costs may well skyrocket.
If a product can be deemed defective even though it complies with Defense Department specifications; and if there is a duty to warn for products installed on Navy vessels, military suppliers need to seriously reevaluate the risk/reward associated with supplying products they believe will be incorporated into ocean going vessels, or otherwise used at sea.
And is the Court proposing that products supplied to the Defense Department for use on Navy vessels should now be littered with warning labels? I suspect the Defense Department might take serious issue with that. Suppliers would be justified, however, in taking the position that the Defense Department must “either live with my warnings or indemnify me from liability for failure to warn.”
How could all of these issues have been missed? This decision would not appear to be the Court’s finest hour.
How exactly does a manufacture go about warning anyone about the risk provided by a part incorporated into a navy ship that has been modified by a third party? The part manufacturer has no idea who will be exposed to such a part since assignments of personnel to ships is not part of their jobs. You can’t stamp a warning on the part because such a warning would be covered by the asbestos or other material added to the part after it is out of the manufacturers control. Does the navy in the case avoid any responsibility for overseeing the part’s modification and election to expose the personnel to the asbestos the manufacturer was not in a position to be aware of? It seems like the manufacturer is going to be harmed no matter what action it takes, even when providing warnings in totally impossible to do.
I understand your points but given the litigious environment today, companies would be smart to designate someone to review any product used, manufactured, controlled or marketed that could have any relationship with asbestos to identify possible exposures. I know I have been aware of the dangers of asbestos exposure for some years now; how can any company doing business with the Navy not know that too. This may be hindsight of course but now that the cat is out of the bag, I would err on the side of caution. Saving money at the expense of safety doesn’t add up.
I know of the dangers of asbestos without having come in contact with it. Given the litigious environment today, I can’t see how any company that does business with anything related to asbestos isn’t aware of the possibility of a safety issue. Prudence should be the basis of a company’s responsibilities to its clients as well as its employees and contractors.
Defense Department suppliers are required to comply with detailed military specifications with respect to all elements of their products — including labelling — i.e. “warnings..” A supplier is not at liberty to deviate from those specifications because it believes it is appropriate to warn members of the armed forces of potential dangers associated with the use of the product as specified by the military.
That being the case, Defense Department suppliers are protected from liability by what is known as the “military contractor defense.” Having read only summaries of the majority and dissenting opinions, I don’t know why the military contractor defense was not applied in this case.
The Court appears, however, to have adopted a “maritime law” exception to the military contractor defense. If that is, in fact, the case, the Navy’s procurement costs may well skyrocket.
If a product can be deemed defective even though it complies with Defense Department specifications; and if there is a duty to warn for products installed on Navy vessels, military suppliers need to seriously reevaluate the risk/reward associated with supplying products they believe will be incorporated into ocean going vessels, or otherwise used at sea.
And is the Court proposing that products supplied to the Defense Department for use on Navy vessels should now be littered with warning labels? I suspect the Defense Department might take serious issue with that. Suppliers would be justified, however, in taking the position that the Defense Department must “either live with my warnings or indemnify me from liability for failure to warn.”
How could all of these issues have been missed? This decision would not appear to be the Court’s finest hour.