Opinion ID: 844228
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Decision

Text: In 2009, the First District Court of Appeal addressed the very question presented here. In Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 571-572 [90 Cal.Rptr.3d 414] ( Taylor ), a serviceman developed mesothelioma from his exposure to asbestos on a warship. Like O'Neil, Taylor worked in the ship's engine room. In the course of his duties, Taylor sometimes removed and replaced the internal gaskets, packing, and insulation pads used in pumps and valves. ( Ibid. ) After his death, Taylor's family sued the manufacturers of these pumps and valves. [9] They argued, as plaintiffs do here, that a `manufacturer has a duty to warn of hazards arising from the foreseeable uses of its product, even if that hazard arises from the addition of a product that, although manufactured by another, is used in the normal and intended operation of the defendant's product.' ( Taylor, at pp. 572-573.) The Court of Appeal determined that pump and valve manufacturers could not be held strictly liable for failing to warn about the dangers of asbestos exposure. It gave three reasons for this conclusion. (12) First, California law restricts the duty to warn to entities in the chain of distribution of the defective product. ( Taylor, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Based on authorities discussed above, including Peterson v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.4th 1185, and Soule v. General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th 548, the Taylor court observed that our strict products liability precedents have recognized a bright-line legal distinction imposing liability only on those entities responsible for placing an injury-producing product into the stream of commerce. ( Taylor, at p. 576.) The pump and valve manufacturers could not be strictly liable for failure to warn, the court concluded, because these companies were not part of the `chain of distribution' of the gaskets, packing, discs, and insulation that Mr. Taylor encountered. ( Id. at p. 579.) (13) Second, in a related holding, the Court of Appeal determined that in California, a 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 causes or creates the risk of harm. ( Taylor, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) The court rejected the notion that a manufacturer has a duty to warn whenever the intended use of its product will expose consumers to risks arising from the product of another. ( Id. at p. 580.) (14) Relying on analogous failure to warn cases, the court concluded that, in general, a manufacturer's duty to warn is limited to the dangerous propensities of its own products. ( Id. at pp. 580-583; see Garman v. Magic Chef, Inc., supra, 117 Cal.App.3d 634; Blackwell v. Phelps Dodge Corp., supra, 157 Cal.App.3d 372; Powell v. Standard Brands Paint Co., supra, 166 Cal.App.3d 357; see also In re Deep Vein Thrombosis, supra, 356 F.Supp.2d 1055.) Although a manufacturer may owe a duty to warn when the use of its product in combination with the product of another creates a potential hazard, that duty arises only when the manufacturer's own product causes or creates the risk of harm. ( Taylor, at p. 580.) (15) Third, the Taylor court determined that the component parts doctrine provided an alternate basis for concluding the pump and valve manufacturers owed no duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos. ( Taylor, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 584-586.) The component parts doctrine provides that the manufacturer of a component part is not liable for injuries caused by the finished product into which the component has been incorporated unless the component itself was defective and caused harm. ( Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 480-481 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 614, 58 P.3d 450]; Rest.3d Torts, Products Liability, § 5, subd. (a); Taylor, at p. 575.) Based on evidence that the pumps and valves were designed to operate as part of a larger `marine steam propulsion system' ( Taylor, at p. 584), the court concluded the manufacturers could be held liable only if defects in these components caused injury or if the manufacturers participated in the integration of their pumps and valves into the ship's propulsion system. ( Id. at p. 585.) Because neither of these requirements was met, the manufacturers could not be held liable for asbestos-induced injuries. ( Ibid. ) [10]