Facts

The plaintiffs alleged that William Molina ("Molina"), age 73, was exposed to various petroleum hydrocarbon solvent products supplied by defendants Shell Oil Company ("Shell"), Chevron U.S.A. Inc. ("Chevron") and Union Oil Company of California ("Unocal") during the course of his employment at the former Firestone Tire & Rubber Company ("Firestone") plant in Salinas from 1963 to 1980. They alleged those exposures caused him to develop a type of cancer, follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ("NHL").

William Molina began his 17-year career at Firestone in the Receiving and Stores Department, where he worked from 1963 until about 1970. He had a variety of job titles in Receiving and Stores, including utility worker, power trucker, checker, and lead man. In 1970, Molina was transferred to the Tool and Die Shop, where he became a die maker. Molina worked as a die maker until 1980. He was never engaged in the process of building tires.

The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were negligent and their products were defective. The plaintiffs claimed negligence, strict liability for failure to warn, and strict product liability design defect (under both the consumer expectation and risk-benefit prongs.)

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Molina alleged he was heavily exposed to industrial solvents at the Firestone plant when 55-gallon barrels of solvent were punctured or leaked during the time he worked in Receiving and Stores, and when he used a solvent colloquially known as "bennie," as a cleaning agent in the course of Molina's job as a die maker. (Note: "bennie" is not benzene. The employees of Firestone called several different hydrocarbon solvents "bennie".)

Molina contended that Shell, Chevron, and Unocal supplied Firestone with industrial chemical solvents, including "bennie," and that some of these chemicals contained small concentrations of benzene. (They did: at concentrations <2%). Molina contended his inhalation and dermal exposure to these solvents caused his NHL with which he was diagnosed in January 2006. In February 2006, Molina began chemotherapy, which he completed in May 2006.

He contended that Firestone provided him no personal protective equipment (e.g., respirators or gloves), nor training in working with and around hazardous materials.
Molina remained in remission although one of his experts testified during trial that he thought Molina had recently relapsed (his treating doctor, on a more likely than not basis, disagreed.)

The plaintiffs also contended that the hydrocarbon solvent product mixtures were carcinogenic; that the products contained benzene in the 1-2 percent range and that benzene is carcinogenic; that Molina received a heavy dose of hydrocarbon solvents generally and benzene specially; that the products caused his NHL; and that the products were defective for the lack of a cancer warning.

The plaintiffs further contended that the defendants knew that the products were carcinogenic and that the failure to provide a cancer warning was in conscious disregard of users' rights and for that reason, defendants should be subjected to punitive damages.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants denied all material allegations. They moved for summary judgment/adjudication on plaintiffs' failure to warn theories on the basis that at all relevant times, Firestone was a knowledgeable and sophisticated employer, which had the actual knowledge, means and legal obligation to provide Molina with a safe place in which to work. As such, defendants owed no duty to plaintiff to provide adequate warnings to him.

The defendants relied upon the new California Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56 (held, defendant owed no duty to warn a sophisticated user of risks about which he had received specialized training.) The trial court denied the motion on the basis of sustained evidentiary objections to certain of the deposition evidence (from other litigation) on which defendants relied to prove Firestone's sophistication and knowledge, but held that the defense did apply and defendants could seek to prove it up at trial as an affirmative defense.

The defendants also moved for summary adjudication on the design defect (consumer expectations) theory on the ground that the products at issues, industrial solvents used in tire manufacturing operations, are not of the type about which ordinary users would be able to form minimal expectations of safety. The trial court denied the motion, but granted a motion in limine to exclude this cause of action. Additionally, the court refused to give CASI Jury Instruction 435 as modified for solvents.

The defendants contended that "hydrocarbon solvents" have not been demonstrated by standards of medicine and epidemiology to be carcinogenic; in any event, epidemiological studies identifying a putative association between hydrocarbon solvents and NHL were not published until after Molina ceased work at Firestone and accordingly defendants could not have known of such putative association at a relevant time; that the causal connection between benzene and NHL has not been established by the standards of medicine and epidemiology; in any event, Molina's hydrocarbon and benzene doses were small and not toxicologically significant; and that if there was a risk of harm associated with the use of the products at Firestone's facilities, Firestone was a very sophisticated and knowledgeable about such risks; and that Firestone possessed all the knowledge of industrial hygiene, toxicology, epidemiology and medicine that was available in the scientific literature and knew everything that the defendants knew.

Settlement Discussions

Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney acted as settlement officer, presiding over two settlement conferences (with all principals present.)

Damages

Angelina Molina sued for loss of consortium. (She did not testify because her Alzheimer's disease prevented her from doing so. The jury was so advised.) The plaintiffs sought punitive damages. The parties stipulated that Molina's past economic damages were $115,565. The plaintiffs' damages theory was that Molina would relapse and shortly die within two years of trial, leaving 11.9 "lost years" and resulting in substantial non-economic damages and loss of household services. The plaintiffs did not seek a specified damages amount from the jury.

Result

At the close of the evidence, the trial court found that plaintiffs had not adduced sufficient evidence on any particular theory of negligence other than failure to warn, and held that the strict liability failure to warn theory would adequately cover all failure to warn theories. The case was submitted to the jury on strict liability failure to warn and design defect (risk-benefit). The jury found that the design of defendants' products were not a cause of Molina's NHL. Under California law, this is a predicate finding to the risk-benefit liability analysis. Had the jury found otherwise, the burden then shifts to the defendants to prove that the benefit of the design outweighs the risks. The jury found that Chevron and Unocal's products were defective under the failure to warn theory; it found Shell's products were not so defective. The jury found that the warning defect was not a cause of Molina's NHL.

Other Information

The defendants sought costs in the approximate amount of $400,000. The plaintiffs' motion to tax is pending but stayed following their filing of a petition in bankruptcy. The plaintiffs did not move for new trial or JNOV. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.