Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp.
190 Cal. App. 4th 23
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Larry Stewart, a plumber, developed mesothelioma and sued Union Carbide for fraud, negligence, and strict products liability; Janet Stewart sued for loss of consortium; jury allocated 85% of fault to Union Carbide and awarded substantial damages and punitive damages.
- Stewart exposed to asbestos via sanding joint compound on drywall; joint compounds (Hamilton Materials and USG) allegedly contained asbestos sourced from Union Carbide’s Calidria mine.
- Stewart testified sanding dust was pervasive and breathable; he did not receive warnings about asbestos hazards; plaintiffs offered expert causation linking dust exposure to mesothelioma.
- Trial court directed verdict for Union Carbide on fraud; jury found for plaintiffs on negligence and design/failure-to-warn products liability; punitive damages awarded.
- Jury later awarded economic and noneconomic damages, plus $6 million punitive damages; court applied credits for preverdict settlements and reduced judgments accordingly; appeal followed challenging fault allocation and punitive damages.
- Court ultimately affirmed judgment in favor of the Stewarts and rejected Union Carbide’s challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sophisticated purchaser defense to duty to warn | Stewart argues Union Carbide cannot shift warning duty via intermediaries. | Union Carbide seeks a Johnson-based defense tying purchaser knowledge to duty. | Defense rejected; manufacturer remains responsible despite intermediary knowledge. |
| Jury fault allocation and instructions | Union Carbide argues error in jury instruction and allocation of fault, seeking broader distribution. | Union Carbide contends misapplication of evidence and improper jury guidance. | Jury allocation upheld; instructional issues not reversible error given full instructions and record. |
| Evidence supporting punitive damages and due process | Punitive damages justified by Union Carbide’s knowledge and concealment of risks. | Punitive damages excessive or unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. | Punitive damages sustained; conduct egregious and properly supported by record; due process standards satisfied. |
| Evidentiary rulings and limiting instructions | Certain exhibits and behavioral state-of-mind evidence were properly admitted or harmless. | Union Carbide contests admissibility and limiting instructions. | Rulings proper; no reversible error identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 56 (Cal. 2008) (sophisticated purchaser doctrine not applied to intermediary knowledge)
- Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 32 Cal.App.4th 461 (Cal. App. 1995) (duty to prove concurrent/alternate causes and percentage shares)
- Jenkins v. T&N PLC, 45 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Cal. App. 1996) (bulk supplier/defective product doctrine for asbestos)
- Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 161 Cal.App.4th 651 (Cal. App. 2008) (supplier liability for asbestos; raw material defect)
- Arena v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 63 Cal.App.4th 1178 (Cal. App. 1998) (discusses intermediary warnings and knowledge)
- Carmichael v. Reitz, 17 Cal.App.3d 958 (Cal. App. 1971) (intermediary warning sufficiency requirement)
- Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co., 129 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. App. 2004) (bulk supplier/defective component liability framework)
- Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2009) (due process considerations for punitive damages; reprehensibility ratio)
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon, 3 Cal.3d 875 (Cal. 1971) (evidentiary review standard for sufficiency)
- City of Ripon v. Sweetin, 100 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. App. 2002) (edge-of-evidence challenges on admissibility)