William P. Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man developed cancer from asbestos in a construction product. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the modern “risk-utility” test for design defects, reaffirming the older “consumer expectations” test and making it easier for plaintiffs to bring such claims without proving a reasonable alternative design.
Legal Significance: This case solidifies Florida’s adherence to the consumer expectations test for strict liability design defect claims, rejecting the Restatement (Third) of Torts’ risk-utility test and its requirement that plaintiffs prove a reasonable alternative design. It is a key precedent for Florida products liability law.
William P. Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
William P. Aubin developed terminal peritoneal mesothelioma, which he alleged was caused by exposure to asbestos-containing drywall joint compounds during his work as a construction supervisor between 1972 and 1974. The asbestos, SG-210 Calidria, was a component part supplied by the defendant, Union Carbide Corporation. Union Carbide did not simply mine raw asbestos; it subjected the asbestos to a proprietary centrifuge process to create a unique, highly efficient product with enhanced properties for use in end products like joint compounds. Union Carbide marketed these special design features to intermediary manufacturers, such as Georgia-Pacific, who then incorporated the asbestos into the final products used by Aubin. Aubin testified that he was unaware the products contained asbestos, saw no warnings on the packaging, and did not expect that their normal use would release dangerous dust. At trial, the jury found for Aubin on theories of strict liability for defective design and failure to warn. The intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court should have applied the Restatement (Third) of Torts’ risk-utility test.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the appellate court err by adopting the Restatement (Third) of Torts’ risk-utility test, which requires proof of a reasonable alternative design for a strict liability design defect claim, instead of adhering to Florida’s established consumer expectations test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts?
Yes. The court quashed the appellate decision, holding that the consumer expectations Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the appellate court err by adopting the Restatement (Third) of Torts’ risk-utility test, which requires proof of a reasonable alternative design for a strict liability design defect claim, instead of adhering to Florida’s established consumer expectations test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts?
Conclusion
This case serves as a definitive statement that Florida is a consumer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni
Legal Rule
Florida adheres to the consumer expectations test for strict products liability design Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Legal Analysis
The Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed its foundational products liability precedent, West v. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim a
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Florida adheres to the consumer expectations test from the *Restatement (Second)