Opinion ID: 721564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Military Equipment

Text: 7 As a preliminary matter, we have little difficulty characterizing the accommodation ladder in issue as military equipment. In McKay v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 704 F.2d 444, 451 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1043, 104 S.Ct. 711, 79 L.Ed.2d 175 (1984), this Court observed that the line lay somewhere between an ordinary consumer product purchased by the armed forces--a can of beans, for example--and the escape system of a Navy RA-5C reconnaissance aircraft. We believe the accommodation ladder falls within the term's meaning while the can of beans does not. It is used by sailors, marines, or other naval personnel to access other ships, docks, or piers. 8 This case is a far cry from the situation in Nielsen v. George Diamond Vogel Paint Co., 892 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1990), in which the manufacturer readily conceded that its paint was not designed for any special military purpose, or In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d 806, 812 (9th Cir.1992), in which the manufacturer conceded that the asbestos at issue was exactly the same product sold in significant quantities to private industry. The accommodation ladder in this case was specially ordered and designed with the special military needs of the LHD class vessels in mind. Consequently, we are comfortable categorizing this accommodation ladder as military equipment rather than an ordinary consumer good. 9