Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.
206 Cal. App. 4th 15
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Eileen Honer, a California resident, sues Ford for premises liability over mesothelioma allegedly from take-home asbestos exposure via her father’s and brother’s work clothing washed at home.
- Her father and brother worked as asbestos insulators at Ford’s Metuchen, NJ plant under various contracting companies from the 1940s to 1948.
- Ford owned the Metuchen plant; contractor/subcontractor chain included Wigton Abbott, August Arace, Charles S. Wood & Co., and others.
- Jury found Ford negligent to Honer for 5% of damages and awarded $40,000; Ford appeals on statute of repose and duty issues.
- Trial court denied Ford’s JNOV; appellate court reverses on duty, but leaves repose issue unresolved and addresses it in reasoning below.
- After judgment, Honer died; her daughter sought successor in interest; Court noted continued proceedings and stated the jury allocated fault among several entities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Jersey statute of repose bars Honer’s claims | Honer | Ford | New Jersey repose does not bar as to owner in possession; Ford failed to prove owner-builder status. |
| Whether Ford owed Honer a duty of care | Honer argues premises owner owes duty for take-home asbestos exposure to family | Ford contends no duty unless control/known hazard; take-home exposure not within duty | No duty owed to Honer for secondary take-home exposure; Rowland factors do not support a duty. |
| How Rowland/Cabral guidance applies to duty in take-home exposure cases | Honer seeks duty to mitigate take-home risk | Ford argues no duty beyond ordinary premises liability | Court adopts Cabral, holds no duty to Honer under Rowland factors, policy considerations outweigh foreseeability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993) (premises-owner duty framework; retained control considerations)
- Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) ( Rowland factors applied to duty; policy-based exceptions)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (establishes duty framework and Rowland factors)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (foreseeability not alone; policy balancing for duty)
- McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 48 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010) (choice of law on statutes of repose; governmental interest analysis)
- Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. App. 1998) ( Rowland factors and duty considerations)