Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc.

Decision Date25 February 2009
Docket NumberNo. A116816.,No. A117648.,A116816.,A117648.
Citation171 Cal.App.4th 564,90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 414
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesVICKIE L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO. INC., Defendant and Respondent. VICKIE L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CRANE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from the Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, No. CGC-05-438516, Peter J. Busch, Judge.

Waters & Kraus, Paul C. Cook and Michael B. Gurien for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis and Raymond L. Gill for Defendant and Respondent Crane Company.

Debevoise & Plimpton, Roger E. Podesta; Gordon & Rees, Michael Pietrykowski and Don Willenburg for Defendant and Respondent Ingersoll Rand Company.

Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, Robert C. Keeney and Jaime A. Roder for Defendant and Respondent Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc.

Howard Rome Martin & Ridley, Henry D. Rome, Bobbie R. Bailey and Edward C. Hsu for Defendant and Respondent IMO Industries, Inc.

Gordon & Rees, Michael Pietrykowski, Don Willenburg; Munger, Tolles & Olson, Mark H. Epstein, Paul J. Watford and Gabriel P. Sanchez for Defendant and Respondent Leslie Controls, Inc.

OPINION

DONDERO, J.*

In this appeal, Vickie L. Taylor (Mrs. Taylor) challenges the trial court's grant of summary judgment to respondents.1 The case arises out of injuries allegedly suffered by her late husband, Reginald (Mr. Taylor), from exposure to asbestos-containing products during his Navy service aboard the USS Hornet in the mid-1960's. During World War II, when the Hornet was originally commissioned, respondents supplied the Navy with various pieces of equipment that were used in the ship's propulsion system, and some of this equipment included asbestos-containing parts.2 The asbestos-containing parts to which Mr. Taylor was exposed during his service, however, were not manufactured or supplied by respondents but instead by third parties. Plaintiffs sought damages from respondents, alleging that the latter had breached their duty to warn Mr. Taylor of the risks inherent in the asbestos-containing materials supplied by other manufacturers. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents Crane, IMO, Ingersoll-Rand, and Leslie on the ground that, under California law, a manufacturer's duty to warn extends only to the manufacturer's own products. Elliott was granted summary judgment when the trial court held that plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence of causation.

We hold that the trial court was correct in concluding that California law imposed no duty on respondents to warn of the hazards inherent in defective products manufactured or supplied by third parties. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgments.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

During the early 1940's, the five respondents in this appeal supplied various pieces of equipment to the United States Navy for use in the propulsion system of the USS Hornet, a steam-driven aircraft carrier originally commissioned in 1943. The equipment included various valves and pumps, and DFT's. When they were originally delivered to the Navy in the early 1940's, respondents' products incorporated asbestos-containing packing, gaskets, and in some cases, discs or insulation. Significantly, the asbestos-containing gaskets and packing were made by manufacturers other than respondents.

Mr. Taylor joined the United States Navy on July 13, 1964. After boot camp, he was assigned to serve aboard the Hornet. Mr. Taylor served on the Hornet for over three years as a fireman apprentice, fireman, and machinist mate. By the time Mr. Taylor boarded the Hornet, the ship had undergone extensive repairs or overhauls at least three times since it was commissioned.

During his service on the Hornet, Mr. Taylor was assigned to the aft engine room, and his duties included repairing and maintaining machinery in that location. According to his deposition testimony, he was required to remove and replace asbestos-containing internal gaskets, flange gaskets, packing, and blanket insulation from valves and pumps manufactured by respondents. Mr. Taylor testified that he would remove the old gaskets by scraping them off with a putty knife, a wire brush, or a sharp piece of metal.3 The scraping released dust and particles into the air. There were no windows in the aft engine room because it was located below the ship's water line, and Mr. Taylor testified that he inhaled the dust created by removal of the gaskets.

Although it is undisputed that Mr. Taylor was exposed to asbestos-containing materials aboard ship, plaintiffs' naval expert testified that by the time Mr. Taylor served aboard the Hornet, all of the original asbestos-containing parts of respondents' equipment would have been removed. In addition, Mr. Taylor admitted he did not know what entity may have manufactured or supplied the asbestos-containing products with which he worked.

Mr. Taylor was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2004. Plaintiffs filed this action against respondents and a number of other entities on February 8, 2005. The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, strict liability, false representation, intentional tort/intentional failure to warn, and loss of consortium,4 all of which were predicated on Mr. Taylor's exposure to asbestos-containing products. Following discovery, respondents moved for summary judgment. All respondents, save Elliott, contended that they were not liable to plaintiffs because they did not manufacture or supply the asbestos-containing materials to which Mr. Taylor had been exposed during his military service. For its part, Elliott argued that plaintiffs could not establish the element of causation, because they had produced no evidence of Mr. Taylor's exposure to asbestos from any Elliott product.

In opposing the motions for summary judgment filed by Crane, IMO, Ingersoll-Rand, and Leslie, plaintiffs made no claim that they possessed evidence that (1) Mr. Taylor had been exposed to the original asbestos-containing materials respondents included when they delivered their equipment to the Navy, or (2) respondents had supplied the materials to which he was exposed. Instead, plaintiffs argued only that respondents remained liable for "foreseeable uses of the [respondents'] product, including any foreseeable changes." Plaintiffs argument was therefore essentially a legal one—that a "manufacturer has a duty to warn of hazards arising from the foreseeable uses of its product, even if that hazard arises from the addition of a product that, although manufactured by another, is used in the normal and intended operation of the defendant's product." Thus, plaintiffs asserted that so long as the use of the replacement items supplied by other manufacturers was part of the "foreseeable and intended use" of respondents' products, respondents were under a duty to warn even though they had not themselves manufactured or supplied the products that actually caused the injuries.

Plaintiffs opposed Elliott's motion for summary judgment on the basis of Mr. Taylor's deposition testimony that he had "worked on everything that was in the aft engine room" and the declaration of their naval expert. In his declaration, plaintiffs' expert stated that based on his review of Navy documents and his personal inspection of the Hornet, the DFT's aboard the ship were manufactured by Elliott. He further stated that the DFT's were insulated with asbestos during Mr. Taylor's service. Plaintiffs' expert also opined that during the time Mr. Taylor was aboard the Hornet, routine maintenance would have been performed on the DFT's approximately every 2,000 hours of operation, and that such maintenance would have disturbed asbestos-containing materials on the DFT's. Plaintiffs presented no evidence that this maintenance had ever been performed by Mr. Taylor himself or that he had been present when it was done.

The trial court heard argument on the motions in July 2006. With respect to respondents Crane, IMO, Ingersoll-Rand, and Leslie, the trial court ruled that summary judgment was proper based on its view that under California law manufacturers have no duty to warn, under either a strict liability or negligence theory, for products manufactured or supplied by third parties. The trial court granted Elliott's motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs could not establish causation because they had failed to produce evidence that Mr. Taylor had ever worked on any Elliott product or had been exposed to asbestos from any such product.5

Mr. Taylor died on August 28, 2006. Mrs. Taylor filed timely notices of appeal on her own behalf and as her deceased husband's successor in interest.

DISCUSSION

Mrs. Taylor contends that she may recover under both strict liability and negligence theories of liability. As to the former theory, she contends that respondents owed a duty to warn of the dangers inherent in the asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, discs, and insulation that were used in conjunction with their products, even if respondents did not themselves produce or supply the injury-causing materials. Her negligence theory is that respondents breached their duty of care to Mr. Taylor by failing to warn of the risks posed by the asbestos-containing materials that were used in combination with their equipment. We will therefore examine whether respondents owed a duty to warn under either strict liability or negligence. (See Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 547, 559 [explaining that both strict liability and negligence theories of products liability involve questions of duty].) We discuss first the principles that govern our review of the trial court's rulings.

I. Standard of Review

We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same statutory procedure followed in the trial court. (Cadlo v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
109 cases
  • Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 5, 2017
    ... ... L'Oreal USA, Inc ... (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123.) "A ... determined largely by the policies that underlie the doctrine." ( Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc ... (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 576, 90 ... ...
  • Echeverria v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 9, 2019
    ... ... Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & 37 Cal.App.5th 297 Johnson Consumer Inc. (JJCI; collectively, defendants) caused them to develop ovarian cancer ... ) 53 Cal.4th 335, 349, 365, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 ; Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 593-596, ... ...
  • Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 21, 2014
    ... ... 838839, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817 ; see Taylor v. Am. Chemistry Council (1st Cir.2009) 576 F.3d 16, 2425.) The first doctrine is ordinarily ... Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 355, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987 ; Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 584, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 414 ( Taylor ) ... ...
  • Schwartz v. Abex Corp., E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-02511-ER
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 27, 2015
    ... ... 2009) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). A fact is "material" if proof of its ... , Braaten , and the intermediate appellate court decision in Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co ., 171 Cal. App. 4th 564, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • What Cannabis Companies Must Know About Strict Product Liability
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 23, 2023
    ...2 See e.g., Morton v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1529, 1536. 3 Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 564, 577 4 Carlin v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 4th 1104, 1113 (Cal. 1996). 5 Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 53 Cal. 3d 987, 1004 ......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT