T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OB B I E D. B I S P O, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. GSW , I NC. ; AM ER I CAN W ATER H E A T E R C O M P A N Y , do i ng bu si ness as U S Cr a f tma s t e r ; LO W E’ S H I W I N C; B L U E S T A R G A S S E R V I C E , L T D dba B l u e S t a rGa s S e r v i c e ; C HE VR ON U. S . A. I N C ., D efen d an t s, a nd ROBE RT SHAW CONTROLS C O M P A N Y , db a I nv ensy s A pp l i ance C o n tro l s d b a as In v en sys C o n tro l s, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 36052 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 2 2 3 - PK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nna J . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED JAN 07 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r11, 2009

P or t l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F A R R IS , D . W . N E L S O N an d B E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

P l a i nt i f f R obbi e D . B i s po ( “ B i s po” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a w a r d of sum m ary j ud gm entt o d ef endantR ob ert shaw C on trol s C om pany (“ R ob ert shaw ”) on B i spo’ s c l ai m s of s tri ctprod uct s l i abi l i ty a nd fa i l ure t o w arn. B i spo w as se vere l y i nj ured w hen h e unw i tt i ng l y i gn i t ed a l ar ge qu ant i ty of propane gas that col l ec t ed i n h i s bas em entaf t erthe rubb erse al on a val ve i n h i s hotw at erheat er b e c a m e d is p la c e d . R o b e r ts h a w m a n u f a c tu r e d th e v a lv e . ( 1 ) B is p o f

ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t a r e a s ona bl e j ury w oul d ne c e s s a r i l y f i nd tha tthe be ne f

i t s of R obe r t s ha w ’ s va l ve d e s ig n o u tw e ig h e d th e r is k s . I n a s tr ic t p r o d u c ts liab ility c la im in C a lif o rn ia , a pr i m a f a c i e s how i ng tha tthe pr oduc t ’ s de s i gn c a us e d the i nj ury s hi f t s the bur de ns o f p r o d u c tio n a n d p r o o f

to th e d e f

e n d a n t r e g a r d in g r is k - b e n e f it . B a rke rv . L u ll E ngi ne e r i ng C o. , 2 0 C a l.3 d 4 1 3 , 4 3 1 - 3 2 ( C a l. 1 9 7 8 ) .S om e of the e xpe r t s de pos e d by the pa r t i e s r e f e rt o the rubbe rpa r tof

the 1 v a l v e a s a “ s e a t , ” o th e r s a s a “ s e a l . ” W e a d o p tth e l a tt e rt e r m. 3 H e r e , the r e w a s undi s put e d e vi de nc e tha tR obe r t s ha w ’ s va l ve i nc l ude d a rubb erse al ; thatthe rubb erse al on B i spo’ s w at erheat erw as desi gn ed i n a m anner

1 tha ta l l ow e d i tt o be c om e di s pl a c e d unde rhi gh pr e s s ur e ; a nd tha tthe di s pl a c e m e nt o f th e ru b b e rs e a l a llo w e d g a s to f lo w th r o u g h th e v a lv e a n d in to B is p o ’s b a s e m e n t. T h e d es ig n o f th e v alv e, th er ef o re , w as a “su b stan ti al fa cto r” in ca u sin g B isp o ’s in ju ry . Se e C am

pbe l l v . G e ne r al

Motors C or

p. , 3 2 C a l.3 d 1 1 2 , 1 2 5 ( C a l. 1 9 8 2 ) . B i sp o al so m ad e a su ffi ci en tsh o w i n g th atth e i n j u ry w as fo reseeab l e, b ecau se s e ve r a l R obe r t s ha w va l ve s ha d f a i l e d i n the pa s ta nd R obe r t s ha w s houl d ha ve kn ow n thatprop ane t anks ca n sup pl y f arm ore pres sure than i t s val ves w er e d e s ig n e d to w ith s ta n d . I n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntbe c a us e B i s po f a i l e d t o pr oduc e e vi de nc e of ri sk , th e d i stri ctco u rtm i sap p l i ed C al i fo rn i a l aw . E v en w h ere a p l ai n t i ff n ev er so m uc h a s m e nt i ons “ r i s k- be ne f i t , ” a pr i m a f

a c i e s how i ng of

i nj ury a nd c a us a t i on s h if ts th e b u r d e n to th e d e f

e n d a n t. Mc C abe v . A m e r i c an H onda MotorC o. , 100 C al. A p p . 4 th 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 7 (C al. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). In an y e v en t, th e d istrict co u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on tha tB i s po pr oduc e d no e vi de nc e of r i s k w a s c l e a r l y i nc orr e c t . T he4

ac ci denti t se l f, caused by the fa i l ure of the rubb erse al and res ul t i ng i n sever e in ju ry , is e v id e n c e o f

r is k . M o r e o v e r , R o b e r ts h a w d id n o t s h o w a n y b e n e f its o f its v a lv e d e s ig n . See B e r nal v . R i c har d W

ol f Me di c al I ns tr um e nt

s C or p. , 221 C a l . A pp. 3d 1326, 1335 (C al . C t . A pp . 19 90 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe defendant , no tthe pl ai nt i ff , bear s the bu rden w i th r e ga r d t o f

e a s i bl e a l t e rna t i ve de s i gns ) . R obe r t s ha w c a nnotc a rry i t s bur de n of show i ng thatri sk i s outw ei gh ed w i tho utpres ent i ng som e e vi dence of a benef i tthat the r i s k i s outw e i ghe d by . E n try o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n B is p o ’s r is k - b e n e f it theory of s tri ctl i abi l i ty w as i m prop er . (2) B i spo n extchal l enges the entry of sum m ary j ud gm enton hi s c on sum er e xpe c t a t i ons the ory of

s tr i c tl i abi l i ty . S tr i c tpr oduc t s l i abi l i ty , how e ve r , m a y notbe p r e m is e d o n th e c o n s u m e re x p e c ta tio n s th e o ry w h e n “th e q u e s tio n o f h o w s a f e ly the prod uctshou l d h ave perf orm ed ca nn otbe answ er ed by the com m on experi ence of i t s use rs . ” Soul e v . G e ne r al Motors C or

por at i on , 8 C a l. 4 th 5 4 8 , 5 5 6 ( C a l. 1994) . A pr oduc t ’ s c om pl e xi ty i s notc ontr ol l i ng. R a the r , “ [ t ] he c r i t i c a l que s t i on i s w hether the ‘ ci rc um stan ce s of the prod uct ’s f

ai l ure pe r m i ta n i nf

e r e nc e tha tthe pr oduc t ’ s de s i gn pe r f

or m e d be l ow the l e gi t i m a t e , c om m onl y a c c e pt e d m i ni m um sa fe ty a ss um pt i on s of ordi nary consum er s. ’ ” Mc C abe , 100 C a l . A pp. 4th a t1122- 23 ( quot i ng So u le , 8 C al . 4th at56 8-69 ). W e s ee no re as on t o d i sturb t he di stri ct5

c our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha tor di na ry c ons um e r s ha ve no f i r m e xpe c t a t i ons r e ga r di ng the ga s pr e s s ur e tha ts a f e ty va l ve s s houl d w i ths t a nd. ( 3) B i s po c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e ntry of s um m a ry j udgm e nton the c l a i m of f a i l ur e t o w a rn on the gr ound tha tthe r i s k pos e d by R obe r t s ha w ’ s va l ve w a s unknow n a nd unknow abl e . F orthe r e a s ons w e ha ve m e nt i one d, i tw a s e rr or for the di stri ctcourtt o con cl ud e thatthe ri sk of fa i l ure of R ob ert shaw ’ s val ve w as un kn ow abl e a s am att erof l aw . H ow ever , B i spo h as pres ent ed no fa ct s — or even a ny s pe c i f

i c a r gum e nt— t e ndi ng t o s how tha ta ddi t i ona l w a rni ngs w oul d ha ve e f f e c t i ve l y a ve r t e d a ny r i s k, e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof the f a c ttha tthe c om pone ntva l ve w a s u ltim a te ly s o ld to c o n s u m e r s b y a s o p h is tic a te d in te r m e d ia te u s e r . See John son v. A m er i can S tan da rd, Inc. , 43 C al . 4th 5 6, 65 (“ [T he soph i st i ca t ed user ] de f e ns e appl i e s e qua l l y t o s tr i c tl i abi l i ty a nd ne gl i ge ntf a i l ur e t o w a rn c a s e s . ” ) . F or thatre as on , entry of sum m ary j ud gm enton B i spo’ s f ai l ure t o w arn cl ai m w as prop er . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s en try o f su m m ary j u d g m en ti s R E V E R S E D an d th e case R E M A N D E D fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s.