Daily Blast January 12, 2012

Here’s one that should catch your attention. On January 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court filed an important decision setting clear boundary lines for application of strict products liability where one’s product is used in conjunction with a third-party’s product. In O’Neil v. Crane Co. (Jan. 12, 2012, S177401) __ Cal.4th ____, the Court held that “a product manufacturer may not be held liable in strict liability or negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product unless the defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm, or the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products.” (Slip opn., p. 1.)

The defendants in O’Neil made valves and pumps that were used in the steam propulsion systems of Navy warships. (Slip opn., p. 2.) They were sued for wrongful death allegedly caused by asbestos released from external insulation and internal gaskets and packing, which were made by third parties and added to the pumps and valves after sale. (Id. at p. 1.) Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants should be held strictly liable and negligent because it was foreseeable that workers would be exposed to and harmed by the asbestos in replacement parts and products used in conjunction with their pumps and valves. (Id. at pp. 1-2.) The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for nonsuit on all causes of action, but the Court of Appeal reversed. (Id. at p. 8.) The Supreme Court granted review and remanded for entry of a judgment of nonsuit in favor of defendants. (Id. at p. 34.) 

On appeal, plaintiffs argued that defendants’ products were defective because they included and were used in connection with asbestos-containing parts. (Slip opn., p. 9.) They also claimed that defendants failed to warn about the potential health consequences of breathing asbestos dust released from the products used in connection with their pumps and valves. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court rejected both of these claims, holding that defendants were not strictly liable for the decedent’s injuries “because (a) any design defect in defendants’ products was not a legal cause of injury to O’Neil, and (b) defendants had no duty to warn of risks arising from other manufacturers’ products.” (Ibid.) According to the Court, “there was no evidence that the design of the defendants’ products required the use of asbestos components, and their mere compatibility for use with such components is not enough to render them defective.” (Id. at p. 12.) Additionally, decedent’s exposure to asbestos came from replacement gaskets and packing and external insulation that were added to the defendants’ products and were made by other manufacturers. (Id. at p. 15.) There is no duty to warn about dangers arising entirely from another manufacturer’s product, even if it is foreseeable that the products will be used together. (Id. at p. 27.)

The Supreme Court concluded with the observation that strong policy considerations counseled against imposing a duty of care on pump and valve manufacturers to prevent asbestos-related disease. (Slip opn., p. 32.) According to the Court, a duty of care would impose a significant burden on defendants and all other companies that could potentially be held liable for injuries caused by products they neither made nor sold. (Id. at p. 33.)

Related Practices

• Appellate