Toxic Tort/Product Liability Alert
February 2009
Author:
Nicholas P. Vari
nick.vari@klgates.com
+1.412.355.8365
Additional Contact:
Raymond L. Gill
ray.gill@klgates.com
+1.415.249.1088
K&L Gates comprises approximately
1,700 lawyers in 29 offices located in
North America, Europe and Asia, and
represents capital markets participants,
entrepreneurs, growth and middle
market companies, leading FORTUNE
100 and FTSE 100 global corporations
and public sector entities. For more
information, please visit
www.klgates.com.
No Duty to Warn: California Court of Appeal
Rejects Claim That Equipment Manufacturers
Had Duty to Warn of Asbestos-Containing
Products Supplied by Others to be Used With
Equipment on Navy Ships
On February 25, 2009, in an appeal argued by Raymond Gill of K&L Gates on
behalf of its client Crane Co., a California Court of Appeal confirmed that Navy
equipment suppliers have no legal responsibility
in strict liability or negligence
to warn of alleged dangers associated with the allegedly foreseeable use of asbestoscontaining products manufactured and supplied by others that were used with
equipment on Navy ships.1 This decision places California courts in accord with a
growing majority of courts that have decided this issue, and it may represent the end
of efforts to misdirect responsibility unfairly in California asbestos claims, in which
it has been argued that the liability of Navy equipment suppliers was limited only by
what was foreseeable with 50-plus years of hindsight.
Reginald Taylor joined the Navy in 1964. He was assigned to the USS Hornet, a
steam-driven aircraft carrier originally commissioned in 1943, on which he served as
a fireman apprentice, fireman, and machinist mate. As part of his job duties, Mr.
Taylor removed and replaced asbestos-containing internal gaskets, flange gaskets,
packing and blanket insulation for equipment on the ship, such as pumps and valves.
Although plaintiff alleged that certain of the pumps and valves were supplied
originally with asbestos-containing internal components, such as gaskets and packing
material,2 it was undisputed that, in the 20-plus years since Hornet was
commissioned, those original components had long since been removed and replaced
with components manufactured and sold by other entities.
Mr. Taylor was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma3 in 2004. He and his wife filed
a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court in which they alleged, among other things,
that various entities that supplied equipment to the Navy were liable for failing to
warn Mr. Taylor of the dangers associated with the subsequent, allegedly
foreseeable, use of asbestos-containing materials with that equipment. The Taylors
asserted causes of action for, inter alia, strict liability and negligence based upon the
defendants purported failure to warn of dangers allegedly associated with the
1
Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., et al., Case No. A116816 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Div. 5, Feb. 25,
2009) ( Taylor ).
2
Packing material is often a rope-like material that seals the stem of a valve. During the 1940s,
1950s, and 1960s some packing materials contained asbestos.
3
Pleural mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the lungs.
Toxic Tort/Product Liability Alert
asbestos-containing products that were used with the
equipment at some future point.4
Over the past several years, many trial courts have
permitted claims of this type to be submitted to
jurors, and multi-million dollar awards have been
based upon the theory that Navy equipment
manufacturers may be held forever responsible for
asbestos-containing products manufactured and
supplied by others, so long as the future use of
asbestos-containing products was foreseeable to
the equipment manufacturer. The Taylor opinion
rejects that theory in its entirety, finding that it has
never been viable under California law.
The court first addressed plaintiff s strict liability
claims, and after engaging in a lengthy review and
analysis of the various relevant precedents, found
three reasons why the equipment manufacturer
defendants could not be held liable in strict liability
for failing to warn of dangers allegedly associated
with asbestos-containing products used with their
products post-sale:
California law restricts the duty to warn to the
parties that manufactured or supplied the
allegedly defective product (here the asbestoscontaining products that were used with the
equipment);
A product manufacturer has no duty to warn of
defects in products supplied by others and used
in conjunction with the manufacturer s product,
unless the manufacturer s product, itself, caused
the risk of harm (which the pumps and valves
did not), and
The component-part doctrine insulates
manufacturers and suppliers of non-defective
component parts (here pumps and valves) who
do not substantially participate in this
integration of those components into a final
product.
containing product with the equipment was
foreseeable to the defendants. In so doing, the court
found that foreseeability is not synonymous with
duty; nor is it a substitute. 5 The court went on to
balance numerous policy factors regarding the
imposition of a tort duty, since [e]ven if an injury
is foreseeable, policy reasons may dictate a cause
of action should not be sanctioned no matter how
foreseeable the risk. 6
In deciding that policy reasons militated against the
imposition of a duty to warn of alleged damages
associated with the use of other manufacturers
asbestos-containing products two decades after the
defendants equipment was sold to the Navy, the
court found that little moral blame can be attached
to the conduct of which plaintiff complained.7
Moreover, the court found that the imposition of
such a duty would not prevent further injury, since
asbestos has been subject to strict regulation for at
least 30 years. The court concluded by recognizing
that there was no doubt regarding the high social
utility of the conduct of Crane Co. and the other
defendants in providing parts essential to powering
an aircraft carrier that was used to defend the United
States during the greatest armed conflict of the 20th
century. 8 On balance, the court simply rejected the
notion that the equipment manufacturers conduct in
this regard was anything that the legal system
should seek to discourage or punish.
The Taylor decision is not based upon any novel
proposition. To the contrary, it is grounded in
decades of California tort jurisprudence, which
leads to the inescapable conclusion that California
has never imposed a duty to warn regarding
products manufactured and supplied by others in
this context, and that any effort to impose liability
of this type in California courts is, and always has
been, without support, and should not continue in
the future.
The court, then, addressed plaintiff s negligence
claim, and rejected the notion that a duty to warn
existed if the subsequent use of an asbestos5
4
While there were other causes of action asserted, the court s
opinion addressed the failure-to-warn theories only, although
at least some of its analysis would seem to control design
defect claims as well.
Taylor, slip op. at 30.
Id.
7
Taylor, slip op. at 32.
8
Taylor, slip op. at 33.
6
February 2009
2
Toxic Tort/Product Liability Alert
K&L Gates comprises multiple affiliated partnerships: a limited liability partnership with the full name K&L Gates LLP qualified in Delaware and
maintaining offices throughout the U.S., in Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany, in Beijing (K&L Gates LLP Beijing Representative Office), and in
Shanghai (K&L Gates LLP Shanghai Representative Office); a limited liability partnership (also named K&L Gates LLP) incorporated in England and
maintaining our London and Paris offices; a Taiwan general partnership (K&L Gates) which practices from our Taipei office; and a Hong Kong
general partnership (K&L Gates, Solicitors) which practices from our Hong Kong office. K&L Gates maintains appropriate registrations in the
jurisdictions in which its offices are located. A list of the partners in each entity is available for inspection at any K&L Gates office.
This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon
in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
©2009 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
February 2009
3