Bailey v. Safeway, Inc.
199 Cal. App. 4th 206
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bailey injured when a Cook’s Champagne bottle exploded while he was erecting a Safeway display in a Safeway store.
- Bailey sued Saint-Gobain (manufacturer) and Safeway (retailer) under strict liability design defect (consumer expectations) and for negligence; Bailey settled with Saint-Gobain for $1 million and assigned Saint-Gobain’s equitable indemnity rights against Safeway.
- At trial against Safeway, the jury found Safeway not negligent but liable under the design-defect strict liability theory of Saint-Gobain’s product.
- Bailey later filed a separate action for equitable indemnity against Safeway as Saint-Gobain’s assignee, arguing collateral estoppel and the 100% fault finding in the prior verdict.
- Safeway demurred, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, leading to Bailey’s appeal.
- The appellate court held Bailey is bound by collateral estoppel/privity from the prior judgment and that no equitable indemnity lies where Safeway’s fault was solely under strict liability design defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bailey, as Saint-Gobain’s assignee, is barred by collateral estoppel from relitigating Safeway’s negligence | Bailey argues assignee may relitigate fault | Safeway contends prior negligence finding precludes assignee | Yes; collateral estoppel applies |
| Whether a manufacturer found liable for design defect can seek equitable indemnity from a retailer whose fault is only the same defect | Bailey seeks indemnity against Safeway as assignee | Safeway argues indemnity requires independent fault by retailer | No; no indemnity where retailer’s fault is only strict liability design defect |
| Whether the jury’s allocation (Safeway 100% liable) bars indemnity claims under Bostick collaterally | Bailey relies on collateral estoppel from 100% fault finding | Safeway argues collateral estoppel cannot apply to defeat indemnity where no independent fault exists | No; collateral estoppel does not permit indemnity where retailer’s fault is not independently proven |
| Whether Bailey could amend the complaint to state a viable equitable indemnity claim | Amendment should cure defects | No viable amendment shown | No reasonable possibility to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (1990) (privity requirement for collateral estoppel in indemnity context)
- Bostick v. Flex Equipment Co., Inc., 147 Cal.App.4th 80 (2007) (collateral estoppel and indemnity in product defect cases; effects of fault allocation)
- GEM Developers v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc., 213 Cal.App.3d 419 (1989) (comparative equitable indemnity among product-related defendants)
- Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp., 56 Cal.App.4th 618 (1997) (retailer liability under strict products liability context)
- Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc., 86 Cal.App.4th 1135 (2001) (principles of comparative equitable indemnity; fairness among defendants)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (1978) (design defect fault standards (consumer expectations vs. risk/benefit))
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963) (establishment of strict products liability)
- Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal.2d 256 (1964) (extension of strict liability to retailers)
- Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (1991) (design defect theories under strict liability)