The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals precedential decision rejected the bare-metal defense in an asbestos case. Plaintiffs, widows and deceased veterans brought negligence and strict liability maritime actions against several Defendants, including manufacturers of engines installed on Navy ships. They alleged that their husbands developed cancer due to exposures to asbestos aboard Navy ships. The trial court granted the manufacturers? motions for summary judgment based on the bare-metal defense and held that a manufacturer of a product that does not contain asbestos should not be held liable for an asbestos-related injury caused by something added on to manufacturer?s product, in this case asbestos. The Court of Appeals recognized that there was a split among the circuits on the application of this defense. The Court said that a split in authority for negligence claims can be characterized as a debate whether a bare-metal manufacturer could reasonably foresee no asbestos-related injuries. After review of the law for the other circuits the Court held:
?In conclusion, maritime law’s special solicitude for the safety and protection of sailors counsels us to adopt a standard-based approach to the bare-metal defense that permits a plaintiff to recover, at least in negligence, from a manufacturer of a bare-metal product when the facts show the plaintiff’s injuries were a reasonably foreseeable result of the manufacturer’s conduct.? (P. 241)
The appellate Court did not consider the Plaintiffs? strict-liability claim. (See Release No. 711).