Connection lost
Server error
AUBIN v. UNION CARBIDE CORP. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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: The Florida Supreme Court rejected the modern Restatement (Third) risk-utility test for product design defects, reaffirming its commitment to the older Restatement (Second) consumer expectations test and reinstating a multi-million dollar jury verdict for a plaintiff injured by asbestos.
Legal Significance: This case solidifies Florida’s adherence to the consumer expectations test for strict liability design defects, rejecting the Restatement (Third)’s mandatory risk-utility test and its requirement for plaintiffs to prove a reasonable alternative design, thereby defining the state’s modern products liability doctrine.
AUBIN v. UNION CARBIDE CORP. 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 Aubin developed terminal mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos-containing drywall compounds as a construction supervisor. The defendant, Union Carbide Corp., manufactured and sold a specially processed asbestos product, SG-210 Calidria, to intermediary companies that incorporated it into the final drywall products. Union Carbide’s marketing highlighted the unique properties of its asbestos, which resulted from a proprietary manufacturing process that distinguished it from raw asbestos. Aubin filed suit, alleging strict liability claims for design defect and failure to warn. He argued the product was defective because it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. Union Carbide contended it sold a bulk material to sophisticated intermediaries and that its duty to warn was discharged by warning them (the learned intermediary defense). A jury found for Aubin, but the intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which requires a plaintiff to prove a reasonable alternative design under a risk-utility test, should have been applied. The appellate court also found the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the failure to warn claim.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the Florida Supreme Court reaffirm the consumer expectations test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the governing standard for strict products liability design defect claims, thereby rejecting the Restatement (Third)’s risk-utility test which requires proof of a reasonable alternative design?
Yes. The court quashed the appellate decision and reinstated the jury’s verdict. 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 exercita
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the Florida Supreme Court reaffirm the consumer expectations test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the governing standard for strict products liability design defect claims, thereby rejecting the Restatement (Third)’s risk-utility test which requires proof of a reasonable alternative design?
Conclusion
This decision cements Florida's position as a consumer expectations jurisdiction for products 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
Legal Rule
In Florida, a product is defectively designed under a strict liability theory 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
Legal Analysis
The Florida Supreme Court's analysis centered on reaffirming the policy foundations of 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 ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Florida rejects the Restatement (Third) of Torts‘s risk-utility test for design