Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 July 1999
• Docket Number: No. S071500,S071500
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 980 P.2d 398, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,586, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6018, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7742 Thomas A. BOCKRATH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALDRICH CHEMICAL CO., INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents

Page 846

86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846

21 Cal.4th 71, 980 P.2d 398, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,586,

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6018,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7742

Thomas A. BOCKRATH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALDRICH CHEMICAL CO., INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. S071500.

Supreme Court of California

July 29, 1999.

Law Offices of Raphael Metzger, Raphael Metzger, Long Beach, and James W. Parker for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Wartnick, Chaber, Harowitz, Smith & Tigerman, Harry F. Wartnick, Phillip Scott Chan, San Francisco; James Sturdevant, San Francisco; Ian Herzog, Santa Monica; Sharon Arkin, Claremont; Deborah A. David, Los Angeles; Lea-Ann Tratten, Joseph F. Harbison III, Sacramento; Moses Lebovits, Los Angeles; David A. Rosen, Los Angeles; Daniel U. Smith, Kent Field; and Christine D. Spagnoli, Santa Monica, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Anderson, McPharlin & Conners and Thomas J. Casamassima, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Smooth-On, Inc.

Arter & Hadden, Paul D. Hesse, Los Angeles, Frederick J. Ufkes, Santa Monica, Aaron M. Peck, Los Angeles, Erik L. Jackson, Anaheim; Musick, Peeler & Garrett and Paul D. Hesse, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent IIT Research Institute.

Baker & Hostetler, Richard A. Deeb, Crantson J. Williams, Los Angeles; Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich, Don G. Rushing, Mary A. Lehman and Sara L. Cohen, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent ICI Composites Inc.

Belofsky & Jenkins and Charles W. Jenkins, Torrance, for Defendants and Respondents Allied Products Corporation and Insulating Materials, Inc.

Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O'Keefe & Nichols, Mark B. Connely, San Luis Obispo, and Alexander B.T. Cobb, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents Chemical Technology Laboratories, Inc., Structural Polymer Systems, Tapmatic Corporation, the Texwipe Company and Union Rubber, Inc.

Booth, Mitchell & Strange, Kevin Callahan and Daniel M. Crowley, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Whittaker Corporation.

Brownwood, Rice & Zurawski, Luna, Brownwood & Rice and Robert S. Rucci Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Deborah C. Prosser, Riverside, Jeffrey J. Lewis; Landels Ripley & Diamond, Sanford Svetcov, San Francisco; Thomas, Mort, Prosser & Knudsen and Peter A. Schneider, Riverside, for Defendant and Respondent General Electric Company.

San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent Roly International, Inc.

Dale, Braden & Hinchcliffe and Bruce C. Gridley, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Ablestik Labs.

Federman, Gridley & Gradwohl and Bruce Gridley, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents Steco Corporation and Chem-Trend, Inc.

Feldman & Shaffery, Poole & Shaffery, John Shaffery and Samuel L. Tolwin, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents Illinois Tool Works, Inc., and Loctite Corporation.

Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar and Maxine J. Lebowitz, Long Beach, for Defendant and Respondent Steco Corporation.

Hawkins, Schnabel, Lindahl & Beck, Laurence H. Schnabel and Laura E. Hogan, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Dupli-Color Products Company, Inc.

Howard, Moss, Loveder, Strickroth & Walker, Theodore R. Howard and Margaret M. Parker, Santa Ana, for Defendant and Respondent Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Jeffrey S. Pop and Richard S. MacNaughton, Beverly Hills, for Defendant and Respondent Columbia Aluminum Products.

Kirtland & Packard, Jeffrey M. Anielski and Paul R. Cotter, Irvine, for Defendant and Respondent Crest Products Corporation.

Knapp Petersen & Clarke, Kolts & Nawa and Raymond G. Kolts, Pasadena, for Defendants and Respondents Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc., Sigma-Aldrich Corp. and Polysciences, Inc.

Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, John H. Shimada, Los Angeles, Steven R. Lewis and Judith A. Zipkin for Defendants and Respondents MTM Research Chemicals, Inc., and WD-40 Company.

McMillan & Jennings and Robert H. McMillan, Santa Ana, for Defendant and Respondent Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.

Mendes & Mount, James W. Hunt, Richard R. Nelson, Marilyn M. Gates and Dennis S. Morris, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Turco Products, Inc.

Nelson & Teuber and Rolf F. Teuber, Mission Hills, for Defendant and Respondent Monomer-Polymer and Dajac Laboratories, Inc.

O'Neill, Lysaght & Sun and J. Jospeh Connolly, Santa Monica, for Defendant and Respondent Ferro Corporation.

Parker, Milliken, Clark, O'Hara & Samuleian, Asteghik K. Brock, Stephen T. Holzer and Michael T. Stevens, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Chem-Trend, Inc.

Perkins Coie, Ronald A. McIntire, Mark J. Goldzweig and Steven C. Gonzalez, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.

Prindle, Decker & Amaro, Andy J. Goetz, Kristen Dunn and Kenneth B. Prindle, Long Beach, for Defendants and Respondents Chemtronics, Inc., and Spectrum Chemical Manufacturing Corporation.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Rebecca R. Weinreich, Los Angeles, Kirk C. Jenkins, San Francisco, and Thomas B. McNutt, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Sanford Corporation.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold and Lily Chow, Irvine, for Defendant and Respondent Gallade Chemical, Inc.

Stall, Astor & Goldstein and Donald W. Goldstein, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Radiator Specialty Company.

Steptoe & Johnson, Laurence F. Janssen, Kevin C. Mayer, Los Angeles, Richard K. Willard and Brian J. Leske, Wash. D.C., for Defendants and Respondents Shell Oil Company, Fisher Scientific Company, Fisher Scientific International, the Dexter Corporation, Hercules, Incorporated, Miller-Stephenson Chemical Company and H.B. Fuller Company.

Thelen, Reid & Priest, Curtis A. Cole, Fresno, Mark S. Geraghty and Matthew S. Levinson, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents American Cynamid Company, J.T. Baker, Inc., Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Cytec Industries, Inc., and Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc.

MOSK, Acting C.J.

We granted review to decide how a complaint alleging harmful long-term exposure to multiple toxins must plead causation.

Plaintiff, now deceased, contracted multiple myeloma, a form of cancer, while working at Hughes Aircraft Company from January 1973 to March 1994. His suit named at least 55 defendants, including the manufacturers of common products such as WD-40 and rubber cement, and he alleged that the disease arose through his exposure to harmful substances in their products. His second amended complaint, at issue here, contained causes of action for negligence, strict liability for failure to warn and for design defect, ultrahazardous activity, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, and battery.

In his complaint, which is long, rambling, and detailed, plaintiff alleged that he believed he and his immediate coworkers used "most, and perhaps all, of the ... products." Through his and his immediate coworkers' use, he believed he inhaled and had direct skin contact with "most and perhaps all" of them. As for the others, plaintiff alleged he believed that because "all" of the products were used or improperly stored somewhere at the Hughes plant and circulated by its ventilation system, the environment contained "all" of them, and he inhaled or had skin contact with "all" of them. He further alleged that "the foregoing chemicals and chemical ingredients ... [produce] carcinogenic effects."

Plaintiff continued: "Upon reaching the internal organs of Plaintiff's body, including but not limited to the liver and spleen, the foregoing chemicals and chemical products were transformed by metabolic processes, resulting in the formation of toxic metabolites, free radicals, and residual unmetabolized product, by various complex biological mechanisms.... [p] ... Upon being so metabolized, residual unreacted product, toxic metabolites, free radicals and other chemicals resulting from metabolic processes migrated to the bone marrow, where such products, by products, and toxic metabolites caused hemotoxic, hematotoxic, immunotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic injuries to the blood and blood forming organs within Plaintiff's bones, thereby initiating and/or promoting the development of Plaintiff's multiple myeloma and other related and consequential injuries, which will be further established and clarified according to proof at the time of trial."

In discussing the first amended complaint, which was also prolix, the trial court stated: "This complaint is extremely vague, very broad and very global. You have to be very specific as to each defendant and as to each chemical and causation issue. It is not here. It is a global claim. Everybody is responsible for your client's medical problem, but we don't know which defendant and we don't know which chemical it is. We have no idea in terms of causation." The trial court rejected plaintiff's argument that "[w]e have alleged [that] every one of these defendants and every one of these defendants' products caused the disease. That is all we have to do on demurrer. We don't have to prove the case in the demurrer hearing. The case law is quite clear .... that causation may be generally pled[,] meaning [that] to adequately plead a cause of action the Certain defendants demurred to the second amended complaint, and the court renewed its criticism, decided that plaintiff had stated as strong a case as he could, and sustained the demurrers of two defendants without leave to amend. It took the others' demurrers off calendar, ruling that they were moot following its order. Later it entered judgment in all defendants' favor. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

element of causation simply needs to state that the defendants caused the injury."

DISCUSSION

In the ordinary personal injury lawsuit, in which the complaint's factual recitations show plainly the connection between cause and effect, it suffices to plead causation succinctly and generally. (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 155-156, 157 P.2d 1; Dunn v....