237 Cal. App. 4th 1133
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Michael Sherman individually and as successor and his family) sued Hennessy Industries asserting negligence, strict products liability, failure-to-warn, and loss-of-consortium claims arising from an AMMCO brake-lining arcing machine (predecessor in interest to Hennessy).
- Plaintiffs allege the AMMCO machine abraded asbestos-containing drum brake linings (1962–1977), releasing asbestos dust that led to Debra Jean Sherman’s mesothelioma via take-home exposure.
- Hennessy moved for summary judgment, relying on O’Neil: it argued AMMCO’s machine contained no asbestos, could be used with asbestos-free linings, and therefore did not fall within the narrow Tellez-Cordova exception that permits liability for harm caused by an "adjacent" product.
- Plaintiffs submitted evidence that AMMCO designed the machine specifically for drum brake linings for passenger cars/light trucks, that such linings were "near-universal" asbestos-containing products in the relevant period, and that the machine’s grinding action inevitably released asbestos fibers; AMMCO marketed dust-collection systems and warnings beginning in the 1970s.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Hennessy; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding triable issues exist on whether the Tellez-Cordova exception applies and thus summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hennessy may be strictly liable for harm caused by asbestos in a different manufacturer’s product (AMMCO machine used on brake linings) | AMMCO’s machine was designed for drum brake linings that were almost universally asbestos-containing in the 1960s–70s; its intended use inevitably created asbestos dust, fitting the Tellez‑Cordova exception | Under O’Neil, strict liability does not extend to injuries caused by another manufacturer’s product unless the defendant’s product only or necessarily produces the hazard; AMMCO’s machine could be used with asbestos-free linings, so exception doesn’t apply | Reversed: triable issues exist whether AMMCO’s machine ‘‘contributed substantially to the harm’’ under the Tellez‑Cordova exception; summary judgment improper |
| Whether the Tellez‑Cordova exception requires the machine to have a sole or unique harm‑producing purpose | Not required; relevant question is whether using the grinder as intended would invariably expose users to asbestos dust given the near‑universal presence of asbestos linings then | Exception should be limited to products that can be used only in an injury‑producing manner | Court: exception applies where intended use inevitably creates the hazardous situation; here plaintiffs’ evidence could satisfy that standard |
| Whether general complaint allegations concede that linings released asbestos absent grinding (judicial admission) | Evidence (NLCSC reports) shows measurable fibers arose during grinding and not in baseline state; complaint’s broad language is not a binding admission on this fact | Complaint alleges many forms of manipulation release fibers, so plaintiffs cannot show linings were safe absent the machine | Court: complaint’s general allegations do not preclude triable issues; plaintiffs produced evidence raising a genuine factual dispute |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate under O’Neil and component‑parts doctrine | Plaintiffs rely on Tellez‑Cordova and post‑O’Neil cases (Shields, Bettencourt) to show exception applies | Hennessy relies on O’Neil, component‑parts doctrine, and cases limiting liability to manufacturers of the injurious product | Court: O’Neil does not foreclose the Tellez‑Cordova exception here; factual disputes exist so summary judgment reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., 59 Cal.2d 57 (Cal. 1963) (foundational statement of strict products liability)
- Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 8 Cal.3d 121 (Cal. 1972) (foreseeable uses considered in strict liability analysis)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (limits on imposing liability for harms caused by adjacent products; articulated constraints on Tellez‑Cordova exception)
- Tellez‑Cordova v. Campbell‑Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger, 129 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (exception allowing liability where a tool’s intended use inevitably produces hazardous dust from another product)
- Shields v. Hennessy Indus., 205 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (post‑O’Neil decision finding pleadings could state Tellez‑Cordova exception against Hennessy)
- Bettencourt v. Hennessy Indus., 205 Cal.App.4th 1103 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (post‑O’Neil decision permitting amendment to plead facts invoking Tellez‑Cordova)
- Sanchez v. Hitachi Koki, 217 Cal.App.4th 948 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishable: misuse of grinder with saw blade; O’Neil barred liability)