Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co.
198 Cal. App. 4th 1187
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Joneses sue 19 manufacturers in 2009 for injuries and death from Carlos's exposure to 34 chemical products at Goodyear and Upjohn.
- Complaint alleges each product contained toxins that were substantial factors in causing Carlos’s liver, heart, and kidney diseases and death in 2008.
- Trial court sustained demurrers with leave to amend, primarily for lack of causation specificity under Bockrath.
- First amended complaint reiterates exposure to listed products and asserts systemic toxicity from contained organic solvents and other chemicals, citing DMF as an illustrative toxin.
- Demurrers also upheld for fraudulent concealment (fiduciary duty or disclosure duty lacking) and breach of implied warranties (privity concerns).
- Appellate court reverses: causation pleading meets Bockrath standards; fraudulent concealment viable; implied warranty viable in the employer-use context; remands for costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether causation is pled sufficiently under Bockrath | Jonesesidentify products and impute toxins as substantial factors | Need identify each toxin that caused injury for each product | Pleading adequate; not require toxin-by-toxin specificity at this stage |
| Whether fraudulent concealment is pled with adequate duty/knowledge | Manufacturers owe duty to disclose toxic properties to workers; knowledge can be inferred; discovery will reveal specifics | Need precise knowledge/duty source and specific concealment acts | Amended complaint provides adequate notice of concealment; DMF example supports viability; overall adequate to proceed against remaining defendants |
| Whether privity bars implied warranty | Employees’ use of hazardous products by employers allows privity through purchaser-employers; implied warranty viable | Privity generally required; exceptions are narrow and not presumed here | Implied warranty viable as to hazardous products sold for workplace use; privity is satisfied through employer purchasers |
Key Cases Cited
- Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., 21 Cal.4th 71 (Cal. 1999) (set causation pleading requirements for long-term toxin exposure)
- Rivas v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 98 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal. App. 4th 2002) (interprets Bockrath on product identification and toxins)
- Setliff v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 32 Cal.App.4th 1525 (Cal. App. 4th 1995) (pre-Bockrath pleading deficiencies; distinction clarified)
- Oddone v. Superior Court, 179 Cal.App.4th 813 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (nexus requirement for employer exposure claims)
- Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (discovery governs details in class/claims; pleading may be less specific)
- Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., 54 Cal.2d 339 (Cal. 1960) (privity and duty in hazardous-product contexts)
- LiMandri v. Judkins, 52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. App. 4th 1997) (duty to disclose where defendant has exclusive knowledge)
- Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 178 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (duty to disclose and notice in concealment claims)
- Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (fraudulent concealment pleading standards and duties)
- Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2008) (product liability and duty to warn disclosures)
- Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (Cal. 1991) (duty and strict liability related to warning and concealment)
- Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc., 191 Cal.App.4th 1298 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (support for discovery-focused pleading approaches)
- Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal.3d 588 (Cal. 1980) (market-share liability in product defect cases)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (scientific uncertainty in causation; pleading flexibility)