Clapper, Patti, Schweizer and Mason

California asbestos law as it pertains to the liability of certain manufacturers who incorporate asbestos-containing components into their products is in a state of flux. Four different California appellate divisions have recently ruled on the issue.

Three appellate divisions have held that the “components part defense” applies to immunize certain manufacturers of equipment that incorporate asbestos components into their product. ¹ One appellate division disagrees, holding that liability will attach if the defective component part is substantially integrated into the product’s final design.²

Part of the appellate division’s reasoning in upholding the liability of a manufacturer that incorporates a defective component into its final product is that the manufacturer originally selects the component as part of the design of its product and has an integral part in creating a market for the defective component and placing it out into the stream of commerce. The question whether manufacturers should be liable for foreseeable injuries based on the incorporation of defective components into the design of their product is currently on review by the California Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court upholds the rulings in the three divisions that immunize manufacturers, a class of manufacturers will escape liability for manufacturing products that incorporated defective and harmful asbestos-containing components.  Such outcome would shrink the protections under California law that harmed users of defective product previously had.  Many who developed mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases would have reduced ability to recover damages.

_________________________________

1.      Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery, (First District, Division 5, February 25, 2009); Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2d District, Division 3, November 17, 2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 262; Walton v. William Powell (Second District, Division 4, April 22, 2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1470.

2.      O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2d District, Division 5 September 18, 2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1019.