In a high-stakes legal battle that could redefine manufacturers’ obligations in warning employees about asbestos exposure risks, the New Jersey Supreme Court engaged in a probing debate on Wednesday. The case, spearheaded by widow Thomasenia Fowler, challenges a lower court’s decision to grant a new trial to Dow Chemical unit Union Carbide over her husband’s mesothelioma death.
The crux of the matter revolves around whether manufacturers can fulfill their duty to warn workers by providing information solely to their employers. Fowler’s attorney, Amber R. Long of Levy Konigsberg LLP, argued vehemently against this notion, emphasizing the manufacturer’s inherent obligation to provide direct warnings to foreseeable users of the product.
However, Justice Anne M. Patterson raised questions about the existing legal precedent, suggesting that manufacturers may indeed fulfill their duty by conveying information to employers. Long countered this argument, asserting that allowing information provided to employers to replace direct warnings to employees would undermine the fundamental duty to warn.
Union Carbide’s attorney, Michael A. Scodro of Mayer Brown LLP, defended the appellate decision, citing the Supreme Court’s previous recognition that discharging the duty to warn sometimes necessitates communication through the employer.
The debate intensified as Justice Barry T. Albin highlighted the importance of direct communication with employees, citing the jury’s finding that the warnings on Union Carbide’s asbestos bags were inadequate.
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in this pivotal case has far-reaching implications for manufacturers’ responsibilities in ensuring workplace safety and protecting employees from hazardous substances like asbestos. As the legal saga unfolds, the balance between corporate accountability and worker protection hangs in the balance, awaiting the court’s decisive judgment.
