William P. S. Breese to Herbert Morton Ball on Warning Labels for Export Asbestos Fiber (1969)

Two confidential memos, marked as privileged communications between counsel, from William P. S. Breese, a J-M attorney, to Herbert Morton Ball, J-M's general counsel, headed "Asbestos Fibre Sales, Warning Labels." The March 3, 1969, memo, written because of president C. B. Burnett's "concern about foreign laws relating to warning labels," lists who could be exposed to airborne fiber from J-M's export shipments (ships' crews, dockmen and warehousemen; customers' plant workers; and the public, including "residents near plants" and "buyers of salvaged bags"). In 1968, almost 200 customers in more than 50 countries had bought over 263,000 tons of J-M fiber. Breese saw "no real alternative" but to consult lawyers abroad.

What it shows

In his April 1, 1969, follow-up, Breese reported that no survey of foreign law on hazardous products and caution labels could be found in the United States. He quoted the liability articles of the French and Belgian civil codes and described a 1967 European Economic Community directive on labeling dangerous substances, which member countries had to adopt by January 1970. "It is logical to assume that awakening awareness of the alleged problem will be the key to further judicial, legislative and regulatory action," he wrote, and again recommended consulting counsel abroad. The memos were the legal study J-M's president had asked for after the company decided to label fiber bags only for the U.S. and Canada (Policy Committee minutes, December 1968; Standel's report, March 1969). The question they weighed was legal exposure abroad; the March memo also shows J-M's lawyers knew who would breathe the dust from its export bags.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

Johns-Manville's own chronology of what the company knew describes this document as follows:

William P.S. Breese writes a memorandum to Herbert Morton Ball on 4/1/69, informing Ball that in the absence of the recommended survey of legal advice from foreign counsel, inquiries in this country have failed to disclose any survey of foreign laws on the subject of hazardous products, product liability and the legal effect of caution labels. Breese recommends that legal counsel abroad be consulted. He further states that it is logical to assume that awakening awareness of the alleged problem will be the key to further judicial, legislative and regulatory action in the specific areas of labeling internationally.