Johnson v. ArvinMeritor, Inc.
9 Cal. App. 5th 234
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Billy S. Johnson sued multiple automotive-part manufacturers for para-occupational (secondary) asbestos exposure allegedly brought home or encountered when visiting his father, a Bekins mechanic who repaired brakes and clutches (worked at Bekins Stockton 1974–1982).
- Bekins records (Schedule A) identified six trucks (two Fords, four Internationals including a 1975 International unit 428) on which the father worked; dispute focused on whether defendants’ asbestos-containing OEM or replacement parts were present on those trucks when father worked on them.
- Defendants (ArvinMeritor/Rockwell, Maremont, Carlisle) moved for summary judgment arguing Johnson lacked admissible evidence to show exposure to their products; plaintiff relied on discovery, Navistar (International) repository documents, and an expert (Ferrari).
- Trial court sustained objections to Ferrari’s opinions as speculative/lacking foundation and granted summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence that father performed first brake jobs (OEM exposure) or that defendants’ replacement parts were the likely parts used.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed: defendants met initial burden; plaintiff’s evidence required impermissible inferential leaps and showed only possibility, not probable exposure; design-defect theory failed under O’Neil.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of exposure to OEM parts | Johnson: repository docs and witness recollections support inference father likely did first brake job on 1975 International so OEM asbestos exposure probable | Defendants: no evidence father did first brake job; dealership/other mechanics could have done it; plaintiff’s inferences speculative | Held: evidence too speculative; no triable issue as to OEM exposure |
| Sufficiency of evidence of exposure to replacement parts | Johnson: Ferrari’s analysis + discovery shows Carlisle (or defendants) supplied replacement linings so father likely handled them | Defendants: Ferrari’s link between repository docs and Bekins trucks lacks foundation; multiple possible suppliers; plaintiff cannot show probability | Held: Ferrari’s opinions insufficient; plaintiff showed only possibility, not probability of exposure to defendants’ replacement parts |
| Use of discovery and interrogatory responses to shift burden | Johnson: defendants improperly shifted burden by relying on plaintiff’s discovery responses | Defendants: plaintiff’s discovery did not identify evidence proving exposure; may shift burden | Held: defendants met initial burden; Johnson’s discovery responses failed to identify evidence establishing probable exposure, so burden shift proper |
| Design-defect liability for manufacturer who specified asbestos-containing replacement parts | Johnson: Rockwell/ArvinMeritor specified asbestos linings, so design defect liability even if third parties manufactured replacements | Defendants: Taylor/O’Neil preclude liability for harms caused by wholly distinct third-party replacement parts | Held: design-defect theory rejected under O’Neil; strict liability does not extend to harm from distinct products supplied by others absent stronger showing (e.g., product that necessarily requires a defective part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (medical-probability/substantial-factor test for asbestos causation)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (limits strict liability where exposure arises from replacement parts supplied by others)
- Webb v. Special Elec. Co., 63 Cal.4th 167 (Cal. 2016) (substantial-evidence discussion of exposure; limited, fact-specific holding)
- Izell v. Union Carbide Corp., 231 Cal.App.4th 962 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (insufficient exposure evidence where defendant was minority or unknown supplier; sufficient where defendant exclusively supplied product encountered)
- Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., 227 Cal.App.4th 1577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (discovery responses can support summary judgment where plaintiff fails to identify specific exposure facts)
- McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 98 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (possibility is not enough; evidence must permit probability inference)