Johnson v. United States Steel Corp.
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- David Johnson, an auto mechanic, alleges chronic occupational exposure to benzene-containing products caused his acute myeloid leukemia; one product was Liquid Wrench made largely from a coal-derived "raffinate" supplied by U.S. Steel (1960–1978).
- Raffinate contained measurable benzene (tests showed 1–14%; U.S. Steel estimated ≥5%); Radiator Specialty Company purchased raffinate in bulk and used it as ~89–90% of one Liquid Wrench formulation; that formulation was sold to consumers and withdrawn in 1978.
- Plaintiffs sued U.S. Steel and others for negligence, strict products liability (design defect and failure to warn), fraudulent concealment, and loss of consortium; plaintiffs do not challenge the trial court’s finding that U.S. Steel provided adequate warnings to Radiator.
- At summary judgment, U.S. Steel argued it was a bulk/component supplier and thus not liable unless the component (raffinate) itself was defective; the trial court granted summary judgment, distinguishing asbestos precedent and finding no authority that benzene/raffinate is inherently defective.
- The Court of Appeal held the component‑supplier can be liable under the consumer expectations test only if the raw material is inherently defective, but reversed summary judgment because U.S. Steel failed to present evidence negating a triable issue that raffinate might be inherently defective and render the finished product less safe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the component‑parts (bulk supplier) doctrine bars strict liability for design defects in a raw material incorporated into a finished product | Raffinate was defective in design (inherently harmful); supplier liable because defect existed when raffinate left U.S. Steel | Component‑supplier rule shields supplier unless the component itself was defective when supplied | Component doctrine applies, but supplier may be liable if the raw material is inherently defective; court remanded because triable issue exists |
| Whether raffinate is an "inherently defective" raw material subject to the consumer expectations test | Raffinate (containing benzene) is inherently dangerous and renders finished products less safe, like raw asbestos cases | Raffinate/benzene are not inherently defective; they have lawful, useful industrial uses and can be safe with proper handling | Whether raffinate is inherently defective is a factual question; summary judgment improper because U.S. Steel failed to negate that possibility |
| Burden on summary judgment to negate design‑defect claim | Johnson need not prove design defect at summary judgment if defendant fails to negate it | U.S. Steel contends plaintiffs must prove exposure and defect; alternatively, it submitted no evidence showing raffinate is safe | Defendant bore the burden to present evidence negating a design defect; failing that, summary judgment should be denied |
| Whether the rais ed design‑defect issue can be resolved as a matter of law by comparing to asbestos precedents | Johnson relies on asbestos precedents where raw asbestos was treated as inherently dangerous | U.S. Steel argued those cases are distinguishable because raffinate/benzene can be safely used and are altered/combined in finished products | Court distinguished asbestos rulings factually; did not require precedent to find raffinate defective but found current record insufficient to grant SJ to U.S. Steel |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (California Supreme Court) (component parts doctrine: component supplier not liable unless component itself was defective)
- Jimenez v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 473 (California Supreme Court) (supplier of component may be strictly liable if defect existed when component left supplier)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (California Supreme Court) (consumer expectations and risk‑benefit tests for design defect)
- Anderson v. Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (California Supreme Court) (defect categories and standards)
- Arena v. Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp., 63 Cal.App.4th 1178 (Cal. Ct. App.) (raw asbestos subject to consumer expectations design‑defect analysis)
- Jenkins v. T&N PLC, 45 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Cal. Ct. App.) (bulk supplier of raw asbestos can be strictly liable)
- Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 161 Cal.App.4th 651 (Cal. Ct. App.) (followed Arena; raw asbestos does not change when incorporated)
- Maxton v. Western States Metals, 203 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App.) (raw metal substantially altered in downstream manufacturing—no defect in supplier)
- Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal.2d 256 (California Supreme Court) (completed product seller liable for defects in final product regardless of source)