Daily Blast July 9, 2013

On July 9, 2013, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four (Los Angeles) issued a new products liability opinion in Sanchez v. Hitachi Koki, Co., Ltd., et al. (July 9, 2013, B245050) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, applying the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in O’Neil v. Crane Co. (“O’Neil”) (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 342, which held that a manufacturer is not liable in strict liability or negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product unless: (1) the defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm, or (2) defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products. The Sanchez court held that “a product substantially contributes to the harm suffered by a plaintiff only where the intended use of that product inevitably resulted in the harm.” (Slip opn., p. 11.) Further, “a product manufacturer participates substantially in creating a harmful combined use only if it specifically designs its product for the combined use.” (Id. at p. 12.)

Plaintiff cut his hand while using a Hitachi grinder and a Razor Back tooth saw blade in an attempt to cut a tire. (Slip opn., p. 2.) Plaintiff sued Hitachi for product liability and negligence. (Id. at p. 3.) Hitachi moved for summary judgment based upon the California Supreme Court’s decision in O’Neil. Hitachi asserted it had no duty to warn Sanchez to not use a saw blade with the grinder or to provide a kickback prevention for the saw blade because the saw blade was manufactured by a third party. Also, the grinder did not require the use of the saw blade. Further, the safety instructions and manual for the Hitachi grinder expressly warned that saw blades should never be used with the grinder. (Ibid.) Plaintiff contended that O’Neil was distinguishable because the grinder was defective since it lacked a kickback prevention.  Plaintiff also claimed the grinder was made so that a common circular saw blade would fit it. Further, there was no warning on the grinder itself. (Ibid.) The superior court granted Hitachi’s summary judgment motion pursuant to O’Neil. (Id. at p. 5.)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.  Hitachi could not be held liable for a product it did not manufacture. (Slip opn., p. 10.) According to the court, O’Neil recognized that “California law does not impose a 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. 8 quoting O’Neil, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 361.)  Further, the grinder did not substantially contribute to Sanchez’s harm because the saw blade was not intended to be used with the grinder and the manual warned against the use of the saw blade with the grinder. (Slip opn., p. 11.) There was also no evidence to suggest that the grinder would inevitably cause personal injury when used as directed. (Ibid.) Finally, the grinder was not part of a single system that failed in the course of its intended use and caused the plaintiff’s injuries.  The grinder was not intended to be used with the saw blade in a combined system. (Id. at p. 13.) Therefore, pursuant to O’Neil, the order granting Hitachi’s summary judgment motion was affirmed.

Related Practices

• Appellate