Joseph Abate, Jr., Administrator et al. v. AAF (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO RECONSIDER (Motion # 364.00)

The plaintiff, Joseph Abate, Jr., surviving spouse and administrator of the estate of his decedent/spouse, Sharon Abate, brought a four-count complaint against various defendants based upon alleged exposure to various asbestos products.   The defendant, Snap-on, Inc., subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to that complaint on the basis that its products, air-producing tools, contained no asbestos and that it owed no duty to warn the plaintiff of the harm caused by the asbestos products manufactured or sold by others.   The court agreed with the defendant's position and granted the defendant's motion on March 22, 2013 [55 Conn. L. Rptr. 783].

The plaintiff filed a motion for reargument and reconsideration of the court's decision on the grounds that the court failed to apply the appropriate criteria in determining the existence of a legal duty and that it improperly determined a factual question as to whether the defendant's vented air products were defective.   The plaintiff requests the court to reconsider its memorandum of decision and to deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The court has reviewed its memorandum of decision and is satisfied that it analyzed the issues presented within the context of Connecticut law concerning the existence of a duty and that it did not improperly determine a factual question with respect to a defect vis-a-vis the defendant's product.   It also carefully reviewed the case law and the materials submitted by the parties relative to the defendant's motion.

In its decision, the court recognized the general legal principle that liability is not imposed outside of the distribution chain of a defective product and no such duty is imposed upon a manufacturer concerning the defects contained in another manufacturer's products.   In the absence of Connecticut authority, the court relied upon, and agreed with, case law from other jurisdictions where an exception to the general rule had been carved out.   A duty could be imposed upon a nonasbestos tool manufacturer if that tool could only be used in a potentially injury-producing manner, i.e., the sole purpose of that tool was to interact with an asbestos-containing product to produce asbestos dust.   This court determined that, based upon the evidence presented, there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant's nonasbestos-containing tools were multi-purpose tools, and that, accordingly, a duty to warn did not exist.   This court is convinced that it has not overlooked any controlling law, nor misapprehended the relevant facts as presented by the parties pursuant to the defendant's summary judgment motion.

As indicated above, the plaintiff requests the court to deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment.   The court denies the relief sought by the plaintiff.   Accordingly, the court adheres to its original decision, which granted the defendant's summary judgment motion.

BELLIS, J.

Bellis, Barbara N., J.