You Didn't Supply The Dangerous Parts? That's OK -- You're Liable Anyway

    Earlier this year, one of our courts of appeal decided Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, a product liability  decision generally considered to be quite pro-defense.  In Taylor, decedent was exposed to asbestos gaskets and

packing used with defendants' ship-board pumps and valves.  The defendants did not supply the gaskets or packing, and moved for summary judgment on the ground that they couldn't be held responsible for injuries caused by products (the gaskets and packing) they neither manufactured or supplied.  The Court of Appeal for the First District affirmed, holding  that (1) because the pumps and valves were not themselves defective, the defendants had no duty to warn about the dangers of other products used with them;  and (2) because the pumps and valves were incorporated into the overall propulsion system of the ship, there was no liability under the "component parts doctrine," sometimes known as the "bulk supplier doctrine."  (E.g., Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830.)

    Yesterday, the Court of Appeal for the Second District faced the same fact pattern in O'Neil v. Crane Co. (September 21, 2009) ___Cal.App.4th___ (B208225) and reached exactly the opposite conclusions:  First,  the component parts/bulk supplier doctrine applies to

multi-use or fungible products, designed to be incorporated into some other product. The component will be substantially altered by the customer, and the manufacturer of the component will have no control over the design of that finished product, or the warnings or labels on those products.

    Pumps and valves don't fill the bill.  Secondly,

[R]espondents incorporated asbestos-containing products into their products and knew those products would over time be replaced with the same kind of product, and that the products were defective because they required asbestos packing and insulation, and because they had no appropriate warnings. We can see no relevance to the fact that the injury was caused by the operation of its product in conjunction with a replacement part which is no different than the original. If respondents had warned the hypothetical original user, or protected that person by avoiding defective design, subsequent users, too, would have been protected.

    In other words, the fact that the defendants did not supply the asbestos-containing replacement parts did not shield them from liability.  The product could be found defective, and required warning, because it was designed to be used with asbestos.

    So now we have two conflicting decisions on these two questions.  And under the Cal Supremes'  decision in Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, every trial court in the state is free to choose between them.