| Taylor Decision Is Upheld in New Appellate Court Ruling:
Second case in two weeks addresses Taylor and comes to opposite conclusion of O'Neil
September 28 2009
On Friday, September 25, 2009, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Three, reversed a judgment against a manufacturer of Navy equipment in the case of Merrill v. Leslie Controls. The court also upheld an order from the trial court in which it granted summary judgment in favor of WFB&M's client - another equipment manufacturer. Merrill cites the recent Taylor decision in holding that the manufacturer was not liable (1) in strict liability for failure to warn (2) under a negligence theory for failure to warn and (3) in strict liability for design defect. The case is significant because it comes exactly one week after another division from the very same appellate district ruled, in the O'Neil case, that Taylor was wrongly decided.
The case involved Richard Merrill's exposure to asbestos-containing materials while serving in the U.S. Navy from 1959-1979. During that time, Mr. Merrill served aboard four different ships and worked primarily in the engine rooms. His duties included removal and replacement of asbestos containing gaskets, packing and thermal insulation from various types of equipment. Ultimately he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and, along with his wife, filed a personal injury lawsuit. At trial the jury found Leslie Controls responsible under all three causes of action and allocated 15% of the total fault to this defendant for a net judgment against it in the amount of $1,218,565.
The situations in Taylor, O'Neil and Merrill are very similar. They all involved sailors who contracted mesothelioma with allegations against equipment manufacturers. Additionally, they all involve the same strict liability and negligence causes of action. However, the courts in Taylor and O'Neil come to opposite conclusions on a manufacturer's liability.
In following the Taylor rationale, the court in Merrill determined that the defendant was not liable in strict liability for failure to warn because it was not part of the chain of distribution of the asbestos containing gaskets, packing or insulation. Furthermore, the defendant had no duty to warn of defects in another manufacturer's product. This was based on the fact that there was no evidence that Mr. Merrill worked on original asbestos containing components. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant was not required to provide warnings on any asbestos replacement parts. Finally, under the "Component Parts" Doctrine, the defendant could not be held liable for failure to warn, because the plaintiffs could not prove that the defect in the component caused injury. Specifically, there was no proof that the manufacturer supplied the old internal gaskets and packing that Mr. Merrill removed or the new internal gaskets and packing that he installed.
The Merrill court also concluded that the defendant manufacturer could not be held liable under a negligent failure to warn theory. Specifically, the court held that it owed no duty to warn against dangers in asbestos containing products, used in association with or as replacement parts, which it did not manufacture or supply.
It is important to note that, in addition to upholding Taylor, the Merrill court also specifically applied the Taylor analysis to design defect. This has been a growing area of debate with plaintiffs' counsel arguing that Taylor does not encompass design defect and defense counsel maintaining that it does.
O'Neil and Merrill are two conflicting appellate decisions within the district that encompasses Los Angeles where many asbestos cases are venued. This will create continued uncertainty and may ultimately require resolution by the California Supreme Court.
For more information on the Merrill decision or other recent asbestos developments, please contact any WFB&M attorney with whom you have an existing relationship, or call (714) 634-2522 (Orange), (415) 781-7072 (San Francisco), or (213) 489-4015 (Los Angeles) to be directed to someone who can answer your questions.
|
