Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries
The Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of Navy ship equipment like pumps and turbines can be required to warn about asbestos dangers even though the Navy, not the manufacturers, later added the asbestos insulation.
The decision rejects both a broad 'foreseeability' rule and a narrow 'bare-metal defense,' adopting a middle-ground test that applies when a product cannot work as intended without a dangerous added part.
“In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product's users will realize that danger.”
The Court's newly announced three-part test for a manufacturer's duty to warn.
How it got here: A federal district court granted summary judgment to the manufacturers; the Third Circuit vacated and remanded using a foreseeability test, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve a circuit split.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two Navy veterans, Kenneth McAfee and John DeVries, worked for years aboard Navy ships equipped with pumps, blowers, and turbines that required asbestos insulation or parts to function. They developed cancer they attributed to asbestos exposure and, along with their wives, sued the equipment manufacturers for failing to warn them, since the asbestos suppliers had gone bankrupt and the Navy was believed immune from suit.
The question before the Court
If a machine needs asbestos added later to work safely, does the company that made the machine have to warn sailors about the asbestos danger?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that an equipment manufacturer can have a duty to warn about asbestos dangers even when the Navy, not the manufacturer, physically added the asbestos afterward. The key is whether the manufacturer's product required a dangerous part to work as intended, not who actually installed that part.
The Court adopted a three-part test: a manufacturer must warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or should know the combined product is likely dangerous for its intended use, and the manufacturer has no reason to think users already understand that danger. This rejected both a broader rule based on mere foreseeability and a narrower rule shielding manufacturers whenever they didn't supply the dangerous part themselves.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Families of Navy veterans exposed to asbestos gain a path to hold equipment makers liable even when asbestos was added later by someone else, which matters here because the original asbestos suppliers went bankrupt and the Navy is largely immune from suit. Manufacturers whose products require dangerous add-on parts may now need to issue warnings.
What changes now
The case returns to the district court, which must now apply the Court's new three-part test to decide whether the equipment manufacturers knew or should have known that their products would be dangerous once fitted with required asbestos parts. The ruling is limited to maritime law; the Court expressly did not decide what rule should govern failure-to-warn claims outside the maritime context.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly limited its new duty-to-warn test to the maritime context and did not decide what rule should apply to ordinary product-liability cases on land. It also did not decide whether parts manufacturers themselves might separately owe a duty to warn.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Kavanaugh (author).
Dissent (3). Justice Gorsuch (author), joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.
Dissent — Justice Gorsuch
“People should be able to find the law in the books; they should not find the law coming upon them out of nowhere.”Objecting that the new standard unfairly punishes manufacturers who could not have anticipated this duty.
Justice Gorsuch agreed the foreseeability test was wrong but argued the majority's new three-factor test is equally unworkable and departs from the traditional common-law rule that manufacturers need only warn about dangers in their own products. He warned the vague standard invites endless litigation over what counts as 'required incorporation' or an 'integrated product,' unfairly punishes manufacturers who followed the law when they sold their products, and would be wiser left to the traditional rule that places the warning duty on whoever actually supplies the dangerous part. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Sitting as a common-law court in maritime cases, the Court applied general tort principles requiring manufacturers to warn when they know or should know their product is likely dangerous for its intended use and users won't otherwise realize the danger.
- The Court surveyed three competing approaches lower courts had used: a broad rule holding manufacturers liable whenever a dangerous later-added part was merely foreseeable, a narrow 'bare-metal defense' shielding manufacturers whenever they didn't themselves supply the dangerous part, and a middle approach turning on whether the product required the dangerous part to function.
- The Court rejected the foreseeability approach as too broad, reasoning that requiring manufacturers to imagine and warn about every possible later use of their products would impose heavy costs and flood users with excessive, diluted warnings.
- The Court also rejected the bare-metal defense, reasoning that a manufacturer whose product cannot work as intended without a dangerous part is not meaningfully different from one whose own product is inherently dangerous, and the manufacturer is typically best positioned to know and warn about the integrated product's risks.
- The Court adopted the middle test: a manufacturer must warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know the integrated product is likely dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe users will recognize that danger.
- Maritime law's traditional special concern for the welfare of sailors facing hazardous conditions at sea reinforced the Court's choice to adopt this warning duty in the maritime context specifically.