205 Cal. App. 4th 731
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ronald Davis, Marilyn's husband, worked as an instrument technician at Shell Chemicals Torrance plant during the 1960s near Foster Wheeler boilers.
- Foster Wheeler designs and manufactures steam-generating equipment; three Foster Wheeler boilers were at Shell during Davis's tenure.
- Davis was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 and died in 2009.
- Plaintiffs asserted negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium based on Davis's asbestos exposure and defendants' failure to warn.
- Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment, contending it did not manufacture asbestos-containing products and that Davis was not exposed to its asbestos dust; plaintiffs argued liability due to insulation around boilers and failure to warn, including alleged exposure during maintenance.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Supreme Court later addressed O’Neil v. Crane Co. for guidance on manufacturer liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for exposure during maintenance | Davis was exposed to asbestos dust when FW workers stripped insulation from boilers. | FW did not supply asbestos insulation or cause exposure; no product-liability basis for FW for third-party asbestos. | No triable issue; FW not liable for third-party asbestos exposure under these facts. |
| Discovery and FW's participation in asbestos use | Evidence suggests FW participated substantially in using asbestos-containing materials. | Discovery responses were insufficient to prove substantial FW involvement; no continuance requested; no triable issue. | No reversible error; discovery response inadequate to create triable issue; summary judgment affirmed on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (manufacturers not liable for injuries caused by other manufacturers’ products absent substantial involvement)
- Reid v. Google, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010) (ambiguities in witness testimony for jury weighing; not for resolving on summary judgment)
- Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co., 22 Cal.3d 865 (Cal. 1978) (internal inconsistencies in testimony are for the trier of fact to resolve)
- Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal.App.1994) (summary judgment standard; proper focus on pleadings and evidence in record)
- Hawkins v. Wilton, 144 Cal.App.4th 936 (Cal.App.2006) (used for de novo review of conflicting testimony in summary judgment context)