New CA Court of Appeal Opinion re: Products Liability Claims Arising From Asbestos-Contained Brake Linings
The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four (Los Angeles) issued an opinion in Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (June 18, 2015, B252566) __ Cal.App.4th ___, reversing summary judgment in defendant’s favor in a negligence, strict liability and products liability case arising from plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos dust from brake linings. (Slip opn., p. 2.)
Defendant, who’s predecessor in interest designed and sold arcing machines that abraded asbestos-containing brake linings, sought summary judgment contending that no liability could arise because the machine did not contain asbestos and the machine had the capacity to abrade asbestos-free brake linings. (Slip opn., pp. 2-3.) The trial court granted summary judgment finding defendant was not liable for injury caused by asbestos dust from brake linings it neither manufactured not distributed. (Id. at p. 2.) The plaintiff appealed.
Relying on O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 361-362, the Court of Appeal stated that a duty to warn is imposed when a product is intended to be used with another product for the very activity that created a hazardous situation. (Slip opn., p. 16.) The plaintiff presented evidence that the machine was designed to abrade only a certain type of brake lining and plaintiff’s principal exposure to asbestos was during the time brake linings of that type almost universally contained asbestos. (Id. at p. 13.) Thus, the Court of Appeal held that a triable question of fact had been raised and the trial court improperly granted summary judgment. (Id. at p. 23.)
Each of the firm's offices include partners, associates and a professional staff dedicated to meeting the challenge of providing the firm's clients with extraordinary service.
