| Taylor Decision Continues to Gain Momentum
April 23, 2010
On April, 22, 2010, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Div. 4, reversed a judgment awarding plaintiffs $5,660,624.39 in damages (25% of a $21 million verdict), and found that defendants have no duty to warn of hazards inherent in products manufactured or supplied by third parties and later affixed to their equipment. Walton v. William Powell Company, et al. is the third case since Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., et al. which favors the defense argument of no liability in the current component parts dispute.
Plaintiffs, Edward and Carol Walton, claimed that Mr. Walton was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured by William Powell Co. and other defendants during his time in the U.S. Navy. Specifically as to Powell, plaintiffs claimed exposure to valves with asbestos-containing gaskets and packing. Mr. Walton admitted that when he encountered his first Powell valve some time after June 1956, the valves' original gaskets and packing had been replaced before he worked on them. Mr. Walton could not identify the brand name or manufacturer of the replacement packing and/or gaskets.
Relying heavily on Taylor, the Appellate Court held that there was no evidence Powell supplied any of the asbestos-containing products that Mr. Walton ultimately came into contact with (replacement gaskets and packing); therefore Powell did not have a duty to warn as they were not part of the chain of distribution of those materials. Finding no liability against Powell under strict liability, the Court went on to conclude that plaintiffs' claim for design defect failed under the same analysis offered in Taylor-the valves were part of an integrated system, and to impose liability on Powell for hazards from asbestos not a part of their product obligated Powell to scrutinize the development of asbestos-containing products made by others. Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' claims under a more easily met negligence standard, and ruled Powell owed plaintiffs no duty of care.
Like Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc., et al. and Hall v. Warren Pumps, et al., Walton sides with Taylor on the debate of a manufacturer's liability for subsequently affixed parts. The California Supreme Court has already granted review in O'Neil v. Crane Co., et al., (which ruled opposite to Taylor) as well as Merrill, presumably to take the guess work out of whether O'Neil or Taylor is law in California. One wonders the impact Walton will have on the California Supreme Court's much anticipated decision.
For a copy of the Walton decision, please click here.
|
