Opinion ID: 2544284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Propriety of Order Granting Summary Adjudication

Text: We now consider whether the trial court acted properly in granting the defense motion for summary adjudication. The court relied on La Jolla Village, supra, 212 Cal. App.3d 1131, 261 Cal.Rptr. 146, and on Casey v. Overhead Door Corp., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 112, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 603, both of which we have disapproved insofar as they hold or suggest that a manufacturer of components installed in a mass-produced home can never be strictly liable in tort for physical injuries caused by defects in those components. (See ante, fn. 1.) A motion for summary adjudication may be granted only if the moving party shows that a cause of action has no merit, that is, that there is no triable issue of material fact as to the challenged cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1), (o)(l).) Here, the record does not demonstrate as a matter of law that defendant window manufacturers may not be held strictly liable in tort for the alleged damages to parts of the homes other than the windows themselves.