205 Cal. App. 4th 1103
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Consolidated appeals seek reversal of judgments in favor of Hennessy Industries.
- Plaintiffs alleged exposure to airborne asbestos from grinding asbestos-containing brake linings with Hennessy machines; claims include strict liability and negligence.
- Hennessy moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing it did not manufacture/distribute asbestos-containing linings; trial court granted.
- Court held the complaint could be amended to cure defects and reversed the judgment on the strict liability and negligence claims.
- Court analyzed Taylor, Tellez-Cordova, and O’Neil to determine duty, causation, and the viability of claims without direct manufacture of asbestos products.
- Court concluded plaintiffs’ proposed amendments would state valid strict liability and negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs can state strict liability claims against a tool manufacturer for harm from another’s asbestos product. | Bettencourt et al. argue Hennessy’s machine caused release of asbestos. | Hennessy contends it bears no liability for injuries from others’ products. | Yes; amended pleadings could state strict liability claim. |
| Whether plaintiffs can state negligence claims against Hennessy for injuries from another manufacturer’s asbestos product. | Plaintiffs allege Hennessy’s product created a hazardous condition. | Hennessy disputes duty when products are from different manufacturers. | Yes; amended pleadings could state negligence claim. |
| Whether the stream-of-commerce doctrine forecloses liability here. | Hennessy’s role is not required; danger arises from its product’s use. | Liability barred when not in the distribution chain. | No; doctrine does not bar where defendant’s product substantially contributes to harm. |
| Whether plaintiffs can prove causation at the pleading stage. | Hennessy’s machine released asbestos fibers causing exposure. | Causation uncertain given multiple potential sources. | Sufficient at pleading; factual causation to be resolved at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co., 129 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (duty to warn where defendant’s product creates risk with another product)
- Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (no duty to warn for other manufacturers’ products; exceptions exist)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (manufacturers may owe liability where their product substantially contributes to harm)