California Courts of Appeal,
Civil Litigation
Apr. 24, 2014
Ruling refines use of product liability doctrine
A recent decision helps to define the scope of the "component parts doctrine" used in product liability actions. By Craig A. Roeb and Zachary P. Marks
Craig A. Roeb
Partner
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger APC
11900 W Olympic Blvd
Los Angeles , CA 90064
Email: croeb@cgdrblaw.com
Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA
While a component parts manufacturer may not be sued under a theory of strict liability for a finished product that merely incorporates its component, what if the injury stems from the intended use of a component product that is itself known to be hazardous? On March 21, in Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, 2014 DJDAR 3597, the 2nd District Court of Appeal considered this scenario and concluded that a valid claim is asserted where the defendant knew or should have known of the hazards arising from the intended use of its product, even if that product was not incorporated into a finished product.
In Ramos, the plaintiffs, a metal foundry worker and his wife, sued suppliers of metals, plaster and minerals, asserting causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability based on failure to warn and design defects, and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Ramos' exposure to the products caused pulmonary fibrosis. The defendants demurred to the claims on grounds that they failed under the component parts doctrine because the components themselves were not defective. The trial court granted the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. The plaintiffs appealed. The plaintiffs argued that because Mr. Ramos' injuries resulted from the direct and intended use of the defendants' products, and not from injuries resulting from the use of any end product, the component parts doctrine did not shield the defendants from liability. Moreover, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to warn Mr. Ramos of all "scientifically known and knowable" hazards related to his use of their products, and also violated Labor Code Section 6390.5, which requires manufacturers and distributors to provide labels on their products in compliance with attendant regulations. The 2nd District held that the allegations were sufficient to state a valid claim for defective warnings because they asserted (1) that the defendants knew or should have known of the hazards arising from their products when used as intended in the metal casting process; and (2) that users such as Mr. Ramos were unlikely to discover those hazards on their own. The court also found that the plaintiffs' strict liability claim was adequately predicated on a defective design because it alleged that the defendants' products failed to perform as safely as an ordinary user would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. However, the court found that the plaintiffs stated no independent claim for negligence per se because Section 6390.5 does not afford workers a private right of action for such violations against a supplier of injurious products to their employer. Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc., 179 Cal. App. 4th 549, 556 (2009). Accordingly, although the plaintiffs could rely on evidence of those violations to prove their negligence claim, the demurrers to the negligence per se claim were properly sustained. In finding in favor of the plaintiffs, the court reasoned that the injuries asserted in the amended complaint fell outside of both the definition and the rationale of the component parts doctrine. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged direct injury from the intended use of the defendants' products - not from any finished product into which the products were integrated, as the component parts doctrine is defined in Section 5(a) of the Restatement Third of Torts. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Ramos' injuries stemmed from the defective products themselves, which he used as intended, and not from an "integrated product" that incorporated the defendants' products. The decision in Ramos refines the scope of the component parts doctrine by excluding injuries arising from the intended use of a component product that was not incorporated into a finished product. This ruling arguably follows the court's recent decision in Romine v. Johnson Controls Inc., 2014 DJDAR 3414 (Mar. 17, 2014), which held that for a part to be considered a component within the meaning of the doctrine, the part must be a generic, fungible, multi-use or off-the-shelf component.Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com