Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

Our plain-English summary of Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, March 6, 1985).

Emma Jean Halphen sued Johns-Manville Sales Corporation in federal court in Louisiana for the wrongful death of her husband, Samuel Halphen. He died of malignant pleural mesothelioma. She alleged he was exposed to Johns-Manville asbestos products while working at a shipyard in Orange, Texas in 1945 and at various times as an Air Force serviceman. After a January 1982 trial, the jury found that a Johns-Manville product was unreasonably dangerous and that the exposure was a proximate cause of his death. Before trial, the district court ruled that a manufacturer is conclusively presumed to know the dangers of its products. It excluded all evidence on whether Johns-Manville knew or could have known of the danger. On appeal, the full Fifth Circuit did not decide the case. It certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court: whether a manufacturer can be held liable in strict products liability if it shows it did not and could not have known of the product's danger. The court said the answer would affect many people and have a potentially large economic impact.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 6, 1985
• Citation: 755 F.2d 393
• Docket: No. 82-3388
• Stage: Appeal from judgment after trial
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The en banc Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court asking whether a strict products liability manufacturer may avoid liability by showing it did not and could not have known of its product's danger; it did not decide the appeal between Halphen and Johns-Manville.

Issues decided: Wrongful Death and Survival, Design Defect, Failure to Warn.

The people and their exposure

• Samuel Halphen: pleural mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Johns-Manville Sales Corporation (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (July 26, 1984). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff widow, Emma Jean Halphen, against Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (one judge dissenting).

Later decisions citing this one

2 later decisions in our library cite this one:

• Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 1986). Answering a question certified by the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a manufacturer may be held liable for an unreasonably dangerous per se or construction-defective product even if it could not have known of the danger, a result favoring the widow over Johns-Manville.
• Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The court affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Kaylo insulation) and Rock Wool (One Shot cement), reversed the judgments against Garlock, A.W. Chesterton and Flexitallic, affirmed the judgments against Abadie, Naquin and Terrebonne and the dismissal of Plaisance's claim as prescribed, and ordered a virile-share reduction for Avondale's settlement that, on rehearing, applies only to Duronslet.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

755 F.2d 393 (1985)

Emma Jean HALPHEN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 82-3388.

March 6, 1985.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Strong, Pipkin, Nelson, Parker & Bissell, John G. Bissell, Michael L. Baker, Beaumont, Tex., for defendant-appellant. Kermit A. Doucet, Lafayette, La., Helm, Pletcher, Hogan & Burrow, Stephen W. Hanks, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee. Robert S. Rooth, New Orleans, La., for Owens-Illinois, Inc., amicus curiae.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, TATE, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD,

JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In view of the transcending importance of the resolution of the principal issue presented in this diversity case, acting en banc this court determined to certify an inquiry to the Supreme Court of Louisiana pursuant to its Rule XII. Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, 752 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.1985).

CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

TO THE HONORABLE, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND THE HONORABLE,

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES THEREOF:

It appears to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that this case involves a question of Louisiana law for which we find neither clear, dispositive statutory provision nor precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. As we earlier concluded, resolution of this issue will affect a large number of people and have a potentially enormous economic impact, Id. at 125.

1. Style of the Case

The certified case is Mrs. Emma Jean Halphen, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, number 82-3388 on the docket of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

2. Stipulated Statement of Facts

This is a strict products liability action for damages from wrongful death between Emma Jean Halphen, Plaintiff, and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Defendant, which was tried in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Lake Charles, in January, 1982.

Plaintiff's husband, Samuel Halphen, died during the pendency of the lawsuit from a malignant pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung. Plaintiff alleged that her husband had been exposed to asbestos-containing products sold by Johns-Manville, while working at a shipyard in Orange, Texas in 1945, and at various [*394] times during his career as a serviceman in the Air Force.

The jury found that there was a Johns-Manville product involved which was unreasonably dangerous to normal use under Louisiana standards of product liability, and that such exposure was a proximate cause of his death.

The District Court ruled prior to trial that a manufacturer is conclusively presumed to know of the dangers in the products it sells, whether or not it has or could have acquired actual knowledge about the product's dangers; and excluded all evidence from both sides of whether Johns-Manville knew or could have reasonably anticipated that the harm sustained could result from exposure to its product.

3. Question Certified

In a strict products liability case, may a manufacturer be held liable for injuries caused by an unreasonably dangerous product if the manufacturer establishes that it did not know and reasonably could not have known of the inherent danger posed by its product?

In posing this question, we intend no limitation or restriction of the review and consideration of the legal issues presented by the Louisiana Supreme Court, for in light of its understanding and perspective of Louisiana law it might view the essential question differently.

The entire record in this case, together with copies of the briefs of the parties, are transmitted herewith.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Louisiana asbestos laws
• Louisiana asbestos exposure sites