Product Liability -- 2012



O'Neil v. Crane Co.   (California Supreme Court)

Liability for asbestos products made by another company and affixed post-sale

On November 12, 2009, the NAM and seven other companies filed an amicus letter urging review of this case. An emerging liability theory is that makers of non-defective products should be held liable for harms allegedly caused by asbestos-containing products made by others and attached post-sale. We supported review to resolve a clear conflict between two California Courts of Appeal. Earlier in 2009, The First District held that various parts supplied to the Navy had no duty to warn of the dangers in asbestos-containing products supplied by other manufacturers. In a separate decision, the Second District created a broad new duty rule that requires manufacturers to warn about risks in products made by others. The court's review may help secure uniformity of decision and reverse the broad new duty rule created by the Second District's decision. The new duty rule would also worsen asbestos litigation, causing a potentially substantial burden on California's judicial system.

The court agreed to hear this appeal, and the NAM filed an additional brief on March 9, 2010. On January 12, 2012, the court unanimously decided there would be no liability for harm caused by another company's products unless the defendant's own product contributed substantially to the harm or the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products. This is an important victory in California to keep normal duty-of-care principles intact. Just because harm from the use of another company's products might be foreseeable doesn't mean that it is sufficient by itself to impose strict liability on the manufacturer of a nondefective product, or one whose arguably defective product does not actually cause harm. It is excessive and unrealistic to impose the burden on manufacturers to investigate the potential risks of all other products and replacements parts that might foreseeably be used with their own product and warn about all of those risks. Such a duty would also undermine consumer safety by inundating users with excessive warnings, according to the court.


Related Documents:
NAM brief  (March 9, 2010)
NAM Amicus letter  (November 12, 2009)