William P. Aubin, Petitioner v. Union Carbide Corporation, Respondent — Polston, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would grant Union Carbide a new trial because the failure-to-warn instruction was misleading: it told the jury that Union Carbide had to warn end users directly without explaining the learned intermediary defense. The dissent also concludes that Union Carbide adequately preserved the issue by objecting to the instruction and proposing relevant factors for evaluating reasonable reliance on intermediaries. The dissent rejects the majority's view that the proposed instructions were legally insufficient to preserve the defense.