205 Cal. App. 4th 782
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Consolidated asbestos-related actions against Hennessy Industries regarding its brake arcing machines.
- Plaintiffs allege machine designed to grind asbestos-containing brake linings released airborne asbestos fibers during use.
- Trial court granted judgments on the pleadings in Hennessy’s favor, dismissing negligence and strict liability theories.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing proposed amended complaints state viable negligence and strict liability claims under Taylor, Tellez-Cordova, and O’Neil.
- Court reviewed de novo whether pleadings support liability despite there being no asbestos in the machine itself.
- Court concluded the pleadings, viewed with O’Neil’s framework, may sustain liability because the machine’s sole use caused asbestos exposure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleaded negligence claim is viable | Shields v. Hennessy alleges the machine was designed to grind asbestos linings and released asbestos during reasonable use. | Machine itself not containing asbestos and not the final product; component-part/chain-of-distribution limits liability. | Yes; pleadings may state a viable negligence claim under O’Neil/Tellez-Cordova. |
| Whether pleaded strict liability claim is viable | Machines designed solely to grind asbestos-containing linings, causing exposure; strict liability appropriate. | Liability limited under Taylor/Tellez-Cordova to harm caused by own product or warning duties; not for harms from others' components. | Yes; pleadings may state a viable strict liability claim under O’Neil framework. |
| Whether O’Neil supersedes prior limitations on liability for asbestos | O’Neil supports broader duty when a defendant’s product substantially contributes to harm. | O’Neil does not extend liability beyond its factual limits; should follow Taylor and Peterson limitations. | O’Neil supports allowing these claims to proceed at pleadings stage; not dispositive here. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend | Proposed amended pleadings clearly raise viable theories under Taylor/O’Neil and should be allowed. | Trial court properly dismissed; amendments not sufficiently pled to state a claim. | Yes, the judgments were reversed and remanded to permit further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2012) (tightens limits on strict liability for harm from other manufacturers' products)
- Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (no strict liability for failures to warn about asbestos in others' components)
- Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co., 129 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (supports duty to warn under certain ‘inevitable use’ scenarios; component parts doctrine discussed)
- Peterson v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 1995) (chain of distribution doctrine for strict liability)
- Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (Cal. 1991) (duty to warn about hazards inherent in own products)
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (Cal. 1963) (origin of strict products liability in California)