Daily Blast February 1, 2012

On February 1, 2012, Division Three of the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles) issued an important published opinion in Maxton v. Western States Metals (Feb. 1, 2012, B227000) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, refusing to extend liability on suppliers of raw metal products under negligence and strict liability causes of action. (Slip opn., p. 3.)

In a decision that results in the affirmance of a grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Lewis Brisbois attorneys Judith Zipkin, Jeffry Miller, and Brittany Bartold succeeded in demonstrating to the Court of Appeal that suppliers of non-defective raw materials are not liable for injuries caused by the manufacturing process of that raw material.

Plaintiff Maxton claimed that he sustained personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by defendants and supplied to Maxton’s employer. (Slip opn., p. 3.) He argued that the metal products were inherently hazardous products because the intended use was to melt, cut, grind, sand, and solder the products, which resulted in the release of toxic fumes. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrers and granted motions for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Maxton’s complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that Maxton could not maintain his negligence and strict liability causes of action against the defendants. (Id. at p. 3.)

The Court of Appeal explained that under the component parts doctrine, “suppliers of raw materials to manufacturers cannot be liable for negligence or under a strict products liability theory to the manufacturers’ employees who sustain personal injuries as a result of using the raw materials in the manufacturing process. Only in extraordinary circumstances—such as when the raw materials are contaminated, the supplier exercises substantial control of the manufacturing process, or the supplier provides inherently dangerous raw materials—can suppliers be held liable.” (Slip opn., pp. 3, 6.) According to the court, the defendants’ metal products were not defective or inherently dangerous like raw asbestos. (Id. at p. 14.) Rather, metal products are closer to raw materials like nuts and screws since they can be used in innumerable ways. (Ibid.) Additionally, Maxton did not allege that he was injured simply by handling the metal itself, or even the final product. (Id. at p. 12.) The metal products were not dangerous when they left defendants’ control, but only became dangerous when they were substantially changed during the manufacturing process controlled by Maxton’s employer. (Id. at pp. 12-13.) Further, there was no indication that the defendants played any role in developing or designing the end products. (Id. at p. 13.) As a result, the court concluded that “that the social cost of imposing a duty on defendants and expanding the strict liability doctrine under the circumstances of this case far exceeds any additional protection provided to users of defendants’ products, including Maxton.” (Ibid.)

Related Practices

• Appellate