Preview:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

BARRY URIAN, Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06C-09-246 ASB

Submitted: April 23, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010 On Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion for Reargument of Decision Denying Ford Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED

MEMORANDUM OPINION Thomas C. Crumplar, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Attorney for Plaintiff Barry Urian Christian J. Singewald, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, White and Williams LLP, Attorney for Defendant Ford Motor Company

JOHNSTON, J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

Plaintiff Barry Urian worked as a gas station attendant at the Crist Texaco Service Station in Pennsylvania from 1952 to 1962. From 1962 to 1963, he worked at the Ennis Service Station in Pennsylvania. Urian

brought suit claiming injury as a result of asbestos exposure due to maintenance he performed on vehicles manufactured by defendant Ford Motor Company in the course of his employment at both service stations, and as a result of his non-occupational maintenance of a Ford Coupe. He also claimed that his injury was due to Ford's failure to warn consumers that removal and replacement of its vehicles' brakes may result in asbestos exposure. Urian testified that at both the Crist and Ennis Services Stations, he assisted with brake repairs on a variety of vehicles, some of which included vehicles manufactured by Ford. In his testimony, Urian admitted that he did not know the maintenance history of any of these vehicles or if he handled any original manufactured products. Urian could not recall the brand names or manufacturers of the brake parts he removed from any of these vehicles, but he did testify that he installed brake products manufactured by companies other than Ford.



1

Regarding his non-occupational maintenance of the Ford Coupe, Urian testified that he did not know the maintenance history of the vehicle, whether he removed any original manufactured parts, or the brand names of the components he removed or installed. Ford filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not a manufacturer of any after-market brake products. Ford argued that Urian could not establish a product nexus that could demonstrate a causal relationship between his injuries and any of Ford's products. Ford also claimed that, because of the absence of a product nexus, it was under no obligation to warn consumers of the health risks associated with another manufacturer's products. The Court granted Ford's motion with regard to the lack of product nexus, but found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Ford's duty to warn. To show a duty to warn under Pennsylvania law, Ford argued, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the manufacturer did not provide a warning, and that failure to warn was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Ford argued that because there was no product nexus, there was no causation.



2

Urian argued that under Chicano v. General Electric Co. 1 , a manufacturer is liable for a failure to warn where the manufacturer knows or should know that an another product, essential for the safe operation of manufacturer's product, contains asbestos. Ford countered that, in Chicano, the Court found the defendant liable because the defendant had knowledge that the component product contained asbestos, whereas Urian could not identify any replacement parts or demonstrate that Ford knew the replacement parts contained asbestos. This Court found that, in contrast to Delaware law, Chicano demonstrated that a manufacturer could be held liable for a failure to warn consumers of the danger related to a component piece that is essential to the safe operation of the manufacturer's product. As a result, the Court denied Ford's motion with regards to Ford's duty to warn and found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ford knew of the dangers of asbestos, whether Ford knew that an asbestos product was necessary to operate its vehicle safely, and whether Ford knew that an asbestos product would have been used for the replacement or repair of its brake linings. In its Motion for Reargument, Ford argues that Pennsylvania does not impose liability on manufacturers for products they neither supply nor
                                                        
1

2004 WL 2250990 (E.D. Pa.).



3

manufacture.

Ford argues that the Court erroneously applied a limited

holding in Chicano to this case, and that Urian failed to establish that his asbestos exposure was more than de minimus

Download 141620.pdf

Delaware Law