Source: http://www.ettdefenseinsight.com/category/california/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:36:02+00:00

Document:
Earlier this month, a California appellate court ruled that an offhand remark by a corporate employee may be sufficient to award punitive damages. The court also addressed issues related to the “every-exposure” theory, without wading directly into the every-exposure debate.
The court held that the letter served as circumstantial evidence that the company was aware that asbestos could be a potential health hazard years before it ceased using asbestos, and was sufficient to support an award of $3.5 million in punitive damages (of a total $5.8 million award).
The admittance of the letter has broad implications, suggesting that any stray remark – even a sarcastic expression of confidence in a product ingredient by a corporate employee who was not in the upper echelon – can serve to support a finding of massive punitive damages.
In an unpublished portion of the decision (meaning it may not be cited as precedent in California, though it may be citable elsewhere), Phillips also addressed the split in authority regarding the “every-exposure” (a.k.a. “no safe dose”) theory versus the “every-identified-exposure” theory in asbestos litigation. Under the every-exposure theory of causation, “every exposure to asbestos fibers is a substantial factor in causing disease, regardless of fiber type or dose, so long as the fibers are traceable to a product and are not merely ‘background’ fibers found in the ambient air.” The same defendant lost a challenge to that theory in Davis v. Honeywell International Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, and sought to have the Phillips court part ways with Davis. Instead, the Phillips court found that the expert had espoused the subtly different “every-identified-exposure” theory.
In reaching this conclusion, the Phillips court quoted an Ohio decision approvingly: “Although some courts have rejected the ‘each and every exposure’ theory, others have distinguished testimony suggesting a de minimis exposure to asbestos could cause mesothelioma from testimony that each significant exposure to asbestos could be a cause.” The California court found that this theory was “consistent with California law addressing proof of causation in asbestos-related cancer cases,” in that it considered only significant and identifiable exposures in determining the risk of the disease.
On December 1, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled that premises owners and employers owed a duty to prevent take-home asbestos exposure to those in an employee’s household. The court declined to carve out an exception to the general duty imposed by California statute (Civ. Code, § 1714) on every person to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others. While the decision does not specifically cover take-home claims against product manufacturers, the rationale of the decision suggests that they too will be subject to take-home liability. Recognizing a duty to bystanders will expand the class of persons who may pursue employers and premises owners for asbestos exposure claims. The court found no inconsistency with its opinion and a number of other jurisdictions that have a “no duty” rule. One distinguishing fact is that by the time exposure is alleged to have occurred in the 1970’s information and regulations regarding the dangers of take-home exposure would have been generally known to employers and premises owners, as the result of 1972 OSHA regulations and otherwise.
The court’s ruling came in two consolidated companion cases. In Kesner, plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos when he spent an average of three nights per week at his uncle’s house in the 1970’s. His uncle, an employee of Pneumo Abex, LLC (“Abex”), worked in a plant where brake shoes were manufactured with asbestos fibers that were released during the manufacturing process, and it was alleged that the uncle brought the fibers home on his work clothes. Plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma and he sued Abex. The Kesner appellate court reversed Abex’ nonsuit based upon prior California holding (Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.) that the employer had no duty to a bystander. In the companion case Haver, the decedent’s heirs claimed decedent was exposed to asbestos by her former husband, who was allegedly exposed to asbestos from pipe insulation and other tools while employed as a fireman and hostler in the early 1970’s. Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The Haver appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer, relying upon Campbell and distinguishing Kesner on the ground that Kesner sounded in negligence whereas the Havers’ claims rested on a premises liability theory.
The Supreme Court held that in both instances, a reasonable employer should have known that asbestos presented risk of harm in the workplace and that it was foreseeable its employees would travel outside the workplace, particularly to their homes. “The relevant intervening conduct here – that workers returned home at the end of the day and, without adequate precautions, would bring asbestos dust home – is entirely foreseeable.” Thus, the exposure was foreseeable and duty attached.
A recent California decision describes a set of facts in which the government contractor defense can be successfully applied. Such circumstances have been few and far between.
In Kase v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., the appeal was from an order by San Francisco’s soon-to-be Presiding Judge Teri Jackson granting summary judgment to defendant.
Mr. Kase claimed exposure to asbestos-containing insulation products while working on US Navy nuclear submarines in the 1970’s. The court pointed out that unlike other defendants who have in the past unsuccessfully attempted to assert the defense, Metalclad did not design or produce a piece of hardware or equipment. Instead, Metalclad was a broker of Unibestos. The court finds the government contractor defense was properly asserted for Metalclad while simultaneously acknowledging other decisions that have denied its application for equipment manufacturers. We are left with the predicament wherein a broker who distributes Unibestos can assert the government contractor defense, whereas an equipment manufacturer who has its products insulated with Unibestos cannot. The court notes that the record demonstrated that the Unibestos product at issue was never in the possession of Metalclad. Instead, Metalclad had only arranged for its delivery to the shipyard.
There is no “off the shelf” limitation to the application of the defense.
Products “incidentally sold commercially” may still qualify as military equipment.
Unibestos had asbestos warnings on its insulation products not later than 1968.
While this decision is certainly good news for Metalclad and other similarly situated defendants, other courts may limit it to the specific facts of this case. It seems odd that a company that arranges for the delivery of boxes of Unibestos to the shipyard is protected from liability, while the company that ships its pumps to the same shipyard with comparatively miniscule rings of asbestos containing packing inside their pumps nevertheless is frequently denied the same defense. Perhaps arguing this inconsistency will gain some traction for government contractor equipment manufacturers in the future.
The California Supreme Court earlier this week issued an opinion that, in the words of the dissent, allows for “jurisdiction by joinder.” (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (Anderson), Case No. S221038.) Plaintiffs with claims arising wholly outside California, against non-California defendants, may nevertheless be entitled to jurisdiction in a California court. The keys appear to be (a) whether the claims are similar to those of California residents (b) who are also plaintiffs in the suit (c) against a defendant that conducts significant activity in California as well as elsewhere. While Bristol-Myers most directly applies to large entities in mass tort cases, its rationale could well extend to any lawsuit in which a product was sold or activity conducted in multiple states. The 4-3 decision may also be the subject of a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
“Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS), a pharmaceutical manufacturer, conducts significant business and research activities in California but is neither incorporated nor headquartered here.” Eight California lawsuits were filed against it related to BMS’s drug Plavix. Plaintiffs were 86 California residents and 592 nonresidents. None of the residents purchased the drug in or from California, or had other relevant contacts with the state.
Although the majority opinion was couched in terms of “the particular circumstances of this case,” the dissent looked to the broader precedent being set.
“Finally, the majority asserts that California’s interest in regulating the conduct of codefendant McKesson Corporation (McKesson), a pharmaceutical distributor headquartered in California, justifies adjudicating real parties’ claims against BMS in a California court.…Of all the majority’s red herrings, this is perhaps the ruddiest.” Because of course the question is jurisdiction against Bristol-Myers, not the co-defendant (and there was question as to its role anyway). Research indicates this is the first use of “ruddiest” in a reported California decision. It may not be the last.
As stated above, while Bristol-Myers most directly applies to large entities in mass tort cases, its rationale could well extend to any lawsuit in which a product was sold or an activity conducted in multiple states. The most significant limitation appears to be that a nonresident plaintiff still may not be able to challenge a nonresident defendant in California courts alone; the nonresident needs to find California plaintiffs with similar claims. In any event, counsel who have been advising clients that the Daimler decision forecloses claims in California courts based on general jurisdiction should re-examine that position in light of the Bristol-Myers ruling on specific jurisdiction.
Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court formally adopted the “sophisticated intermediary” defense for product suppliers. The court significantly restricted applicability of the defense, however, and ruled that there was insufficient evidence in this case that Johns-Manville qualified as such an intermediary.
Webb identified four other reasons why the evidence did not justify the trial court’s decision to grant a defense JNOV in the face of a jury verdict finding negligence.
While this evidence may be slim, it was enough to support the jury’s finding of negligence and thus to overrule the trial court’s grant of JNOV to the defense. The evidence in the case may also have been sufficient to support a jury finding that Special Electric was entitled to rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense, but the issue was presented only to the court and not to the jury.
Webb overruled an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had rejected the sophisticated intermediary defense on the rationale that “that doctrine, where it applies at all, applies only if a manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the intermediary.” Webb ruled that “[t]his assertion cannot be reconciled with our analysis in Johnson [v. American Standard, the key California “sophisticated user” decision].… Insofar as it expresses a different view, Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. … is disapproved.” So in at least some cases a defendant that provides no warnings can rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense.
A Ninth Circuit panel including former Chief Judge Kozinski last week rejected the “every exposure” theory advanced by many plaintiff expert witnesses, who thereby try to impose liability on defendants responsible for only vanishingly small amounts of asbestos.
McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. framed the question in terms of the substantial factor test. “Absent direct evidence of causation, a party may satisfy the substantial-factor test by demonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.” The Ninth Circuit found this evidence lacking, thereby justifying summary judgment to defendants.
At most the heirs have provided evidence that McIndoe was “frequently” present during the removal of insulation aboard the Worden and was present 20–30 times during such removal aboard the Coral Sea. But, as the district court found, even if McIndoe was around asbestos dust several times, his heirs presented no evidence regarding the amount of exposure to dust from originally installed asbestos, or critically, the duration of such exposure during any of these incidents.
Both the Ninth Circuit and the district court rejected this argument on the ground that the “every exposure” theory of asbestos causation” amounts “to reject[ing] the substantial-factor test as a whole.” Plaintiffs’ expert “did not make distinctions between the overall dose of asbestos McIndoe breathed aboard the ships and that portion of such exposure which could be attributed to the shipbuilders’ materials,” and his “testimony aims more to establish a legal conclusion—what general level of asbestos exposure is required to show disease causation—than to establish the facts of McIndoe’s own injuries.” Thus, the defendant shipbuilders were entitled to summary judgment.
McIndoe was decided under federal maritime law, and so may not be directly applicable in state law cases. It joins a long list of cases that have rejected the every exposure theory, but interestingly comes mere weeks after a California appeals court allowed every exposure testimony. McIndoe’s emphasis on the amount and duration of exposure is consistent with most decisions on point, and may offer an additional reason for California defendants to seek to remove cases to federal court.
In another holding, McIndoe found that naval warships do not constitute “products,” so that only negligence and not strict liability was available to plaintiffs. Arguably the holding on required evidence of substantial factor causation would be the same under both theories.
California Chocolates: Labelled for Lead?
Chocolate is bad for you. But not for the reasons you thought.
Don’t touch that left over chocolate Easter Bunny. Step away from that Hershey’s chocolate bar, and don’t even think of buying a box of See’s chocolates for your mother for Mother’s Day. That’s right, all these delights, and many others, are bad for your health. But not for the reasons that probably first comes to mind.
As recently reported by CNN, a California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (affectionately referred to as Proposition 65 Prop. 65 in California) bounty hunter with the biblically-themed name of As You Sow has announced that it has served notice on numerous candy companies of impending litigation due to their sale in California of candies with impermissibly high levels of lead and cadmium. As You Sow reports that they have tested numerous candy products and found at least 18 to have excess levels of lead or cadmium.
Those of us practicing in California have for years dealt with lawsuits brought against manufacturers and distributors of innumerable products because they purportedly contained levels of chemicals labeled as hazardous – in excess of the “Maximum Allowable Daily Level” or “No Significant Risk Level” – as identified by the state regulators tasked with applying Prop. 65. When one manufactures or distributes a product found to have such an excess level, the options are to label the products with a “Prop 65 warning,” reformulate the products, or stop selling them in California. Failing to do so results in litigation wherein entities such as As You Sow acting as “private attorneys general” seek an award of civil penalties, injunctive relief and an award of their own attorneys’ fees.
As lead has long been acknowledged to create hazards to some exposed individuals at certain exposure levels, lead has frequently been the target chemical in Prop 65 cases. The alleged exposures can come from ingesting lead or from “dermal absorption” of lead. We have seen cases about lead in women’s jewelry, and lead in herbal supplements. Since lead is a naturally occurring mineral in the Earth’s crust, it is everywhere. And plants that take their nourishment from the soil of the Earth collect measurable levels of lead. Lead is in fruits and vegetables, nuts and berries, and yes even in chocolate. The level of lead content triggering regulatory action in California is 1 part per million.
The result of the frequent litigation over Prop 65 in California has been the proliferation of Prop 65 warnings. California residents see Prop 65 warnings not only on numerous products, but even posted in the lobbies of hotels and office buildings. Californians can rest easier knowing that concerned citizens like As You Sow are working hard to ensure that we will see a Prop 65 warning on some future date on the door at See’s Candies, or on the label of a Hershey Bar or on the box of Godiva truffles.
In California, the “consumer expectations” theory of design defect has been the bane of defense attorneys for years. I cannot tell you how many times we have been unable to persuade the court that it should not allow plaintiffs to pursue this theory. Further, in cases applying either this or the companion strict liability test, risk/benefit, courts regularly exclude virtually all evidence in support of the product design. In a recent opinion from the Court of Appeal for the State of California, Second Appellate District, the court has offered a ray of hope on these very issues.
In Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., plaintiffs claimed that their Toyota Tundra was defective for failing to incorporate an Electronic Stability Control (“ESC”) system. By motion in limine, plaintiffs sought to preclude any evidence “comparing the Tundra to competitor’s vehicles and designs.” The court interpreted this as a request to exclude “all evidence of custom and practice in the pickup truck industry.” Plaintiffs also sought to pursue the “consumer expectations” prong of strict product liability under California law, in addition to a risk/benefit analysis. The court surprised this commentator by affirming the determination by the trial court that evidence of industry custom & practice may be admissible under some circumstances in a risk/benefit case, and by affirming the decision of the trial court to preclude plaintiffs from pursuing consumer expectations.
We are not persuaded either line of authority is entirely correct. Instead, we conclude that evidence of industry custom and practice may be relevant and, in the discretion of the trial court, admissible in strict product liability action, depending on the nature of the evidence and the purpose for which the party seeking admission offers the evidence.
The court explained that industry custom was valuable information.
Industry custom may reflect legitimate, independent research and practical experience regarding the appropriate balance of product safety, cost and functionality. (citations omitted) The parties in a strict products liability action probably will dispute whether and to what extent industry custom actually reflects such considerations and whether it strikes the appropriate balance. But that does not make the evidence inadmissible. Evidence of compliance with industry custom may tend to show that a product is safe for its foreseeable uses, while evidence of noncompliance with industry custom may tend to show that a product is unsafe for its foreseeable uses.
The decision points out that some elements of what is typically considered a negligence analysis have already crept into strict products liability. The court cites the example of comparative fault of the plaintiff, and the possible application of the sophisticated user defense in strict liability cases as evidence that such cases are not totally divorced from any negligence type analysis. That, in the court’s mind, justifies the admission of evidence of custom and practice in some strict liability cases.
Exactly when such evidence is going to be admissible, and when it will not, is not entirely clear. Kim holds that it will be up to the trial court to determine on a case by case basis when such evidence will be admissible. The decision discusses multiple examples of both when such evidence would be admissible and when it would not. This is going to provide fertile grounds for counsel to argue either side in future cases.
For example, Kim ruled that evidence that competitors tried to produce safer designs that ultimately malfunctioned or were prohibitively expensive would be relevant “to the mechanical feasibility factor,” and evidence that competitors’ designs made products less efficient or desirable “would be relevant to the adverse consequences factor.” On the other hand, evidence that Toyota’s competitors did not offer ESC would be neither relevant nor admissible. Frankly, the logic of the examples cited by the court is not readily apparent to this commentator and causes one to expect that attorneys will be struggling with this issue in future cases.
Kim’s discussion regarding evidence of custom and practice addresses “strict products liability” generally, and appears to be saying that evidence of industry custom and practice could be admissible in either a consumer expectations case or a risk/benefit case. But then again, Kim involved only risk/benefit as the trial judge had expressly precluded use of the consumer expectations prong. Thus, plaintiffs may argue that this case stands for the proposition only that evidence of custom and practice might be available in some risk/benefit cases, but does not support the proposition that such evidence is admissible in any consumer expectations case. This should encourage many plaintiff practitioners to do what they are already doing: pursue consumer expectations and forego risk/benefit.
As a result of Gordon & Rees’ amicus efforts (through California defense counsel organizations), along with those of other amici, the Court of Appeal issued an order modifying its opinion in Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Co., Inc. (B251933) to delete a holding that asbestos bankruptcy trusts were subject to the “collateral source rule.” This is an important win for asbestos defendants in California.
As we recently reported, the original version of the opinion held that asbestos bankruptcy trusts were “collateral sources,” meaning that the often substantial recoveries plaintiffs obtain from such trusts could not offset judgments against defendants. The order modifying the opinion deletes the reference to the collateral source rule entirely. It also refers to asbestos bankruptcy trusts as “joint tortfeasors” for purposes of offsetting judgments, and cites several cases holding that recoveries from asbestos bankruptcy trusts are explicitly approved as offsetting a judgment. Equally importantly, the reference to the trusts as “joint tortfeasors” confirms and continues asbestos defendants’ ability to ask juries to assign shares of liability to bankrupt manufacturers.
The other problems we noted with the opinion remain, and California Supreme Court review is still possible.
The End of Litigation Tourism in St. Louis?
Plaintiffs Claim “No One Has Ever Identified a Safe Level of Exposure to Asbestos.” Cal/Osha Begs to Differ.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani – Your 50 State Partner™: As the only law firm with offices and attorneys in all 50 states, we deliver maximum value to our clients by combining the resources of a full-service national firm with the local knowledge of a regional firm. Featuring more than 900 lawyers nationwide, we provide comprehensive litigation and business transactions services to public and private companies ranging from start-ups to Fortune 500 corporations. Founded in 1974, Gordon & Rees is recognized among the fastest growing and largest law firms in the country. The firm is currently ranked among the 40 largest law firms in the U.S. and the top 45 firms for diversity among the AmLaw 200.
Copyright © 2019, Gordon & Rees LLP. All Rights Reserved.

References: v. 
 § 1714
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.