412 S.W.3d 295
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are California residents (or survivors) who developed lymphohematopoietic cancer and allege exposure to PCBs manufactured/distributed by Old Monsanto/Pharmacia was a substantial factor in their cancers.
- Old Monsanto (now Pharmacia for purposes of this appeal) manufactured >99% of U.S. PCBs; PCBs are highly persistent, bioaccumulative, and were used in both closed systems (transformers) and many "open-use" products (paints, inks, adhesives) that release PCBs during use and disposal.
- Plaintiffs produced expert evidence (Dr. Rosner, Dr. Vorhees, Dr. Kramer) and internal Pharmacia documents indicating Pharmacia knew or should have known PCBs would persist and be released to the environment through open uses and disposal; blood tests showed elevated PCB levels in plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence and strict products liability (design defect) under California law; other defendants were dismissed and Pharmacia remained the sole defendant.
- The trial court granted Pharmacia summary judgment holding (1) no duty in negligence because imposing one would expose Pharmacia to limitless liability for downstream releases, and (2) no strict liability for harms from unforeseeable post-use disposals and third‑party conduct.
- On appeal the Missouri court (applying California substantive law) reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact on duty, foreseeability, proximate causation, and whether open‑use and post‑use releases were foreseeable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pharmacia owed a duty of reasonable care (negligence) | Pharmacia designed, manufactured, and distributed PCBs while knowing of persistence and environmental release risks; duty should attach to that category of conduct | Imposing duty to protect against downstream environmental PCB releases would make Pharmacia insurer for limitless plaintiffs and is foreclosed by public policy | Duty exists as a matter of law issue for trial: category is design/manufacture/distribution of PCBs; foreseeability and policy factors do not justify a categorical no‑duty rule (reversed) |
| Whether Pharmacia can be strictly liable for design defect when injuries result from post‑use disposal or third‑party releases | Post‑use disposal and environmental releases were foreseeable; plaintiff has evidence linking PCB exposure to increased cancer risk and elevated PCB blood levels | Strict liability should not extend to unintended/third‑party disposal or subsequent environmental releases; such uses are unforeseeable as a matter of law | Reversed: whether post‑use disposal and third‑party releases were foreseeable is a question for the factfinder; summary judgment improper |
| Whether plaintiffs can rely on exposure evidence (nonidentification of specific PCB source) to meet prima facie causation in a toxic‑exposure case | Plaintiffs need only show threshold exposure and that exposure substantially increased risk (Rutherford approach); need not show exact parcel of molecules | Because plaintiffs cannot identify when or from which specific source the PCBs came, causation is speculative and insufficient | Reversed: under Rutherford and related California authority, plaintiffs may prove causation by showing threshold exposure and increased risk; factual causation is for jury |
| Whether "open‑use" PCBs (intended/foreseeable releases during use) can support strict liability | Open‑use PCBs were marketed for applications that release PCBs; Pharmacia had internal docs showing open uses were major environmental sources | Plaintiffs cannot prove the PCBs in their blood came from open uses rather than other sources, so strict liability fails | Reversed: genuine fact issue exists whether open‑use releases caused plaintiffs' exposure; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (policy factors in imposing duty)
- Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (scope of duty inquiry; foreseeability evaluated at categorical level)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (risk‑benefit test and burden allocation in design‑defect cases)
- Rutherford v. Owens‑Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (threshold exposure and substantial‑factor/risk‑contribution standard in latent‑injury toxic‑exposure cases)
- O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (separating strict liability design analysis from Rowland negligence factors)
- Chavez v. Glock, Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 1283 (foreseeability and misuse in strict liability context)