History
  • No items yet
midpage
241 Cal. App. 4th 1212
Cal. Ct. App.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs Ernest Brady and David Gibbs (and family members) developed acute myelogenous leukemia they allege was caused by exposure to Safety-Kleen 105 Solvent while using Safety-Kleen parts washers.
  • Calsol, Inc. distributed virgin mineral spirits to Safety-Kleen between 1993–1996; Safety-Kleen recycled used solvent with virgin mineral spirits to produce 105 Solvent.
  • Plaintiffs sued Safety-Kleen and its suppliers, including Calsol, alleging negligence, strict liability (design and failure to warn), and breach of implied warranty, asserting benzene contamination in the mineral spirits caused injury.
  • Calsol moved for summary judgment under the component-parts (raw materials) doctrine, arguing it owed no duty because it supplied a nondefective raw material to a sophisticated buyer.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment for Calsol; on appeal the court considered whether Calsol met its burden, focusing on whether mineral spirits were "inherently dangerous." The court reversed and remanded, finding a triable issue of fact on that point.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the component-parts doctrine shields Calsol from liability Mineral spirits are inherently dangerous because they contain benzene, so supplier cannot use the doctrine Component doctrine applies; supplier not liable if component not defective when supplied and no control over end product Reversed: triable issue exists whether mineral spirits are inherently dangerous, so summary judgment inappropriate
Whether "inherently dangerous" is required under the doctrine Artiglio requires showing component is not inherently dangerous; thus plaintiffs can defeat summary judgment by showing inherent danger Calsol contends Artiglio misread Restatement and O'Neil does not require "inherently dangerous" showing Court adopts Artiglio approach; requires supplier to show component not inherently dangerous and finds Calsol failed to do so
Whether mineral spirits here are analogous to inherently dangerous raw materials (e.g., asbestos) Plaintiffs: evidence (expert declaration) that benzene in mineral spirits causes carcinogenic exposure during use Calsol: mineral spirits like kerosene or sand—versatile, not inherently dangerous; Restatement suggests basic raw materials cannot be defectively designed Court: disputes of material fact (expert evidence) preclude finding as a matter of law that mineral spirits were not inherently dangerous
Whether Calsol satisfied remaining Artiglio factors (sophisticated buyer; substantial change; limited role) Plaintiffs did not concede; but main dispute is inherent dangerousness Calsol argued other factors were satisfied and would independently support summary judgment Court did not decide those factors because genuine issue remains on inherent danger; remanded for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

  • O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (discusses component-supplier liability and limits on manufacturer duty to warn)
  • Artiglio v. General Electric Co., 61 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (adopts multi-factor test including that components not be inherently dangerous for supplier protection)
  • Walker v. Stauffer Chemical Corp., 19 Cal.App.3d 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (bulk supplier of sulfuric acid not liable where supplier did not manufacture the finished product)
  • Maxton v. Western States Metals, 203 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (applies Artiglio factors; metal products not inherently dangerous when supplied)
  • Arena v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 63 Cal.App.4th 1178 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (raw asbestos suppliers not protected by component doctrine because asbestos held inherently dangerous)
  • Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp., 190 Cal.App.4th 23 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (asbestos supplier liability cases discussed)
  • Jenkins v. T&N PLC, 45 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (asbestos supplier cases distinguishing inherently dangerous raw materials)
  • Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 161 Cal.App.4th 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (asbestos raw-material liability principles applied)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Brady v. Calsol, Inc.
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Oct 30, 2015
Citations: 241 Cal. App. 4th 1212; 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 243; B262028
Docket Number: B262028
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.
Log In
    Brady v. Calsol, Inc., 241 Cal. App. 4th 1212