Court Opinion

ID: 9725862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:15:59.159972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:20.735853
License: Public Domain

*1008FLEMING, J., Concurring and Dissenting
I agree that plaintiff has pleaded a tort cause of action in strict liability against noncontracting parties for property damages, but I take the view that the relative size and bargaining power of plaintiff vis-á-vis the noncontracting parties are inconsequential. For that reason the trial court erred in giving the supplier-defendants judgment on the pleadings on the cause of action for strict liability.
However, I also take the view that plaintiff’s damages in its tort action in strict liability against noncontracting parties (as contrasted with its negligence action) are limited to property losses (the wine) and may not include such other economic losses as loss of profits, loss of business opportunity, loss of goodwill, and the like.
Both these principles were outlined by Traynor, C. J., in Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9 [45 Cal.Rptr. 17, 403 P.2d 145], where in a strict liability cause the court allowed recovery of damages for injury to property but disallowed damages for economic loss. (See the court’s discussion at pages 16-19 rejecting damages for economic loss.) In my view the Seely opinion recites good law in disallowing recovery for economic loss in tort actions based on strict liability. A supplier now carries the full burden of liability for every kind of loss attributable to his negligence. Under strict liability he additionally carries the full burden of liability for all personal injuries and property losses attributable to defects in his products. Any superimposition in strict liability tort actions of an open-ended responsibility for all economic losses in the chain of distribution must await legislative determination that the manufacturing and distributing processes can absorb unrestricted liability for projects gone agley. At bench, judgment in excess of $1.4 million was sought against the supplier of bottle caps used for an order, or orders, of wine. Suppliers may conclude that assumption of such a huge potential liability is an excessive price to pay to remain in the bottlecap supply business, whose products, in modesty of size, compare with horseshoe nails. And as the proverb tells us, the chain of causality can readily link the loss of a kingdom to the loss of a horseshoe nail.
I would reassert the Seely rule, which restricts recovery for economic loss to contract and negligence actions and disallows it in strict liability tort actions.