Clarence Borel V. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation ET Al., Case Study Example

The case 493F.2d 1076 Clarence Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation et al. was processed by court of appeals. The argument in the initial case was the responsibility of asbestos manufacturers for warning workers about dangerous impact of asbestos on their health; in other words, the issue referred to product liability. Clarence Borel, the plaintiff, argued that he developed asbestosis and mesothelioma during his work on the defendants’ production in the period of 1936-1969. Due to the aforementioned illnesses, Clarence Borel developed lung cancer and soon died; the case was further continued by his heirs.

The plaintiff’s position was that asbestos was to be viewed as “unavoidably unsafe product”; therefore, the main obligation of a seller was to inform consumer of potential risk. The position of the defendants was that harmful influence of asbestos on human health was not generally acknowledged; thus, defendants were not liable for the harm it imposed to the plaintiff. In this regard, it was emphasized that no tests of the influence of asbestos on human health were conducted by defendants. From legal perspective, since defendants failed to inform plaintiff, the issue can be viewed as negligence. The present case is an appeal of defendants-appellants. Thus it can be concluded that he plaintiff won the initial case of a lower court.

The main request of the appeal included rehearing and revision of the decision and process of trial court (jury’s decision). The legal issue posed in the final case referred to the responsibility of manufacturer for dangerous characteristics of its product and subsequent negligence in informing public. In this regard, court of appeal had to reassess such issue as product liability. It had to verify whether producer was liable for the knowledge and scientific verification of harmful influence of its product as an expert. In this context, court had to decide whether the defenders were aware of dangerous characteristics of their product or they were supposed to be aware of that. The second legal issue derived from the first one is the question of whether the defendants/producers were simply negligent in informing potential customers of their knowledge of the danger.

Court’s answers to the legal issues were entirely affirmative. The rationale behind it was the following. First of all, it was outlined that manufacturers indeed held the status of an expert; therefore, it was their direct obligation to test their products in order to gain full knowledge of possible impact of their items on human health. In this regard, manufacturing of the product which might have reasonable harmful effects without informing public is illegal and corresponds to the issue of negligence. Another essential issue derived from the court’s decision is that producer cannot rely on a third party in the expertise of its products. Thus, it remains responsible for the product’s impact on public irrespective of its knowledge of it or not. On the basis of this rationale, the appeal was denied.