247 Cal. App. 4th 521
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff James Hetzel (successor appellant Susan Hetzel) alleges he developed asbestos-related lung injury from using Hennessy brake shoe arcing grinders as a mechanic circa 1958–1962.
- Hennessy’s grinders did not contain asbestos; they mechanically abraded brake linings and released asbestos dust when used on asbestos-containing linings.
- Plaintiff produced evidence that the vast majority of brake linings in the 1960s–1970s contained asbestos; Hennessy presented evidence nonasbestos linings were commercially available in limited use.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Hennessy, reasoning Hennessy’s products did not require asbestos linings and thus Hennessy owed no duty to warn of risks arising from third-party products.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, relying on Sherman v. Hennessy and O’Neil/Tellez-Cordova framework: where a product’s intended (and inevitable) use creates a hazardous condition, the manufacturer may owe a duty to warn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hennessy owed a duty to warn about asbestos exposure from grinding brake linings | Hetzel: grinders were used inevitably on asbestos-containing brakes in the relevant period, so their intended use created asbestos exposure and a duty to warn | Hennessy: grinders work on any brake lining; nonasbestos linings existed, so any asbestos hazard arose solely from third-party products and no duty exists | Reversed summary judgment: triable issue exists because the grinders’ normal/inevitable use on largely asbestos linings substantially contributed to harm, creating a duty to warn |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (California Supreme Court) (manufacturer liability limited where defendant’s product did not substantially contribute to harm or create hazardous combined use)
- Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 237 Cal.App.4th 1133 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reversed summary judgment for Hennessy; grinder’s intended/inevitable use on asbestos linings created triable duty-to-warn issue)
- Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co., 129 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. Ct. App.) (power tools whose sole purpose was to use abrasive discs that inevitably produced toxic dust could give rise to manufacturer liability)
- Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. Ct. App.) (pleading that grinders’ sole intended use was grinding asbestos brakes survived judgment on the pleadings)
- Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc., 205 Cal.App.4th 1103 (Cal. Ct. App.) (similar to Shields; allegations that grinders were inevitably used on asbestos linings sufficient to allege substantial contribution to harm)