| |
 |
|
| |
 |
Firm News/Events
back to News/Events
|
| California Appellate Court Affirms That Equipment Manufacturers Have No Duty to Warn of Third Party Products
February 26, 2009
In a decision that cuts to the heart of product liability cases against equipment manufacturers, the court in Taylor v. Crane Co. (2009) WL 458543 (Cal.App. 1st Dist.), held that there was no duty "to warn of hazards inherent in defective products manufactured or supplied by third parties."
The case involved decedent Mr. Reginald Taylor's exposure to asbestos-containing materials while serving in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Taylor served aboard the USS Hornet, a World War II vintage aircraft carrier, for over three years beginning in 1964. Mr. Taylor was assigned to the aft (rear) engine room. His duties included removal and replacement of asbestos containing packing, gaskets, and blanket insulation from various types of equipment located in the aft engine room. Mr. Taylor was diagnosed with mesothelioma and, along with his wife, pursued a personal injury law suit. Five defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
Four defendants based their motions on the fact that they did not manufacture or supply the products that allegedly exposed Mr. Taylor to asbestos. These defendants argued they could not be held liable for products they neither manufactured nor supplied. The fifth defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs could not establish causation since they did not produce evidence that Mr. Taylor was exposed to asbestos from the defendant's products. The motions for summary judgment were granted for all five defendants. Subsequent to the trial court's grant of the summary judgment motions that are the subject of this appeal, Mr. Taylor passed away. His wife filed a timely appeal on her own behalf and as successor-in-interest to her husband's estate.
In their appeal, plaintiffs did not attempt to argue that Mr. Taylor had been exposed to asbestos from asbestos-containing materials defendants included in their equipment when it was delivered to the Navy, nor did they attempt to argue that defendants had supplied the materials to which Mr. Taylor was exposed. Plaintiffs argued that defendants were liable for "foreseeable uses" of their products, "including any foreseeable changes". This argument essentially states that since defendants manufactured equipment with asbestos-containing component parts, they are liable for exposure to asbestos-containing replacement parts.
Plaintiffs' argument also states that defendants are liable for exposure to asbestos-containing insulation, which they neither manufactured nor supplied, and which was applied to their equipment after such equipment was delivered to the Navy because it was "foreseeable" that the Navy would insulate defendants' equipment with asbestos. In considering this appeal, the court reasoned that California law currently does not require third parties to warn of hazards in a product they did not manufacture or supply, and any changes to this duty would have to come from the California Supreme Court. Therefore, the trial court's decision was upheld.
For more information on this case or the sophisticated user defense, please contact Ingrid Campagne at (415)781-7072, icampagne@wfbm.com, Lisa King Ackley at (714)634-2522, lackley@wfbm.com or Dee Cohen Katz at (714)634-2522, dkatz@wfbm.com.
|
|
Related Practice Areas: Asbestos Litigation
Related Attorneys: Ingrid Campagne, Lisa King Ackley, Dee Cohen Katz
|
|
|
|
|
|
