| |
 |
|
| |
 |
Firm News/Events
back to News/Events
|
| Taylor Decision Challenged in New Appellate Court Ruling
September 22, 2009
On Friday, September 18, 2009, in a surprising move that directly conflicts with the recent landmark Taylor decision of California's First District, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a nonsuit judgment granted to two Navy equipment manufacturers in O'Neil v. Crane Co., et al. Plaintiffs will likely argue that the O'Neil decision governs product liability cases venued in Los Angeles instead of Taylor.
O'Neil v. Crane Co., et al.
Decedent Patrick O'Neil served as an officer aboard the USS ORISKANY between June of 1965 and August of 1966. Plaintiffs contended that Mr. O'Neil contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos contained in equipment on the Navy ship where he worked. The O'Neil family sued Crane Co. ("Crane") and Warren Pumps LLC ("Warren") (collectively "respondents") for negligence, negligent failure to warn, strict liability for failure to warn, and strict liability for design defect on the consumer expectation theory. The situations involved in Taylor and O'Neil are very similar - both involved a Navy service member who contracted mesothelioma, and both involved equipment manufacturers.
After 15 days of jury trial, the trial court in O'Neil granted the respondents' motion for nonsuit and judgment was entered in their favor. The O'Neil family appealed the judgment and on September 18, 2009, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. Of note, the trial judge in O'Neil was judge Elihu Berle, who is now the Presiding Judge of the Civil Division in Los Angeles County.
The ruling in O'Neil rested on two main theories, both integral parts of the Taylor decision: the component parts defense and the replacement parts defense.
1) Component Parts Defense
In summary, under the component parts defense, a manufacturer of a component part is not liable for injuries caused by the finished product unless the component itself was defective when it left the manufacturer, or the component manufacturer substantially participated in the production of the final product.
The Taylor case found that the component parts defense was applicable to manufacturers similarly situated to respondents, citing the fact that the equipment was intended to operate as part of a larger marine steam propulsion system. In its 22 page opinion, the O'Neil court found that Taylor "misses the mark."
In O'Neil, the court found that the respondents do not meet all of the criteria for a component parts seller. The court concluded that Crane and Warren did not supply material/parts that were dangerous only when incorporated into a final product over which they had no control. Instead, the court opined that defendants' products were designed to be used with asbestos insulation and packing which would be removed during routine repair and maintenance. Further, the O'Neil court stated that unlike the manufacturers in other component parts cases, respondents had the ability to warn the users of their products through the manuals supplied with the products.
2) Replacement Parts Defense
Defendant Crane's motion for nonsuit was based in part on evidence that any original asbestos supplied with its products had been replaced by the time Mr. O'Neil served aboard the USS ORISKANY. The O'Neil court disagreed and found that the doctrine of strict liability extends to an injury caused by foreseeable use and misuse of its product and for defective components made by others that are incorporated into the products. The O'Neil court found in this case that the respondents incorporated asbestos-containing products into their own products, which in turn needed the asbestos-containing replacement parts in order to function.
Of course, this is a different outcome than was reached in Taylor. Taylor found that the defendants were not liable because the injury resulted from products made or supplied by other manufacturers that were used in conjunction with the defendants' equipment. The O'Neil court disagreed with Taylor and found that the use of asbestos as a component was by design and not "happenstance." The court stated that "while asbestos does of course have inherent dangers," the danger was caused by the operation of the respondents' products.
O'Neil's Impact
This decision now creates expressly conflicting authority in the State of California regarding liability for after applied/supplied parts and may create uncertainty for the parties as to whether trial judges will apply the standards in Taylor or O'Neil. It is possible that the respondents will petition to the California Supreme Court. If so, that process will take some time.
Please follow this link to view the opinion on the California Courts website.
|
|
Related Practice Areas: Asbestos Litigation
Related Attorneys: Lisa King Ackley, Dana L. Burch, Ingrid K. Campagne, Sharon L. Clisham, Deidre Cohen Katz
Related Articles: California Appellate Court Affirms That Equipment Manufacturers Have No Duty to Warn of Third Party Products
|
|
|
|
|
|
