Garza v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.
California Court of Appeals First Appellate District, Division of Three
On appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco County
Case Number: A116523
Filed March 28, 2008
Cite as 2008 SOS 1901

Product Liability’ Strict Liability Principle Applies to Raw Asbestos

This case hinges on the health effects of Asbestos exposure to plaintiffs in relation to a product liability claim.

There are series of facts determined from the trial. However, the pertinent facts of the case are as follows.

Mr. James and Mrs. Mary Garza moved from the Bay Area (Willits, California) to Longmont, Colorado in 2000 to live with their youngest daughter’s family.

Mr. Garza was a Navy veteran and retired maintenance mechanic. From all the various jobs of Mr. Garza in his lifetime, he was exposed to asbestos, which primarily was the basis for this lawsuit.

On the other hand, the defendant, Asbestos Corporation Ltd. is the owner and former operator of asbestos mines in the Thetford Mines region of Quebec, Canada.

Early 2004, Mr. Garza was diagnosed with asbestos pleural disease and asbestosis. He was placed on supplemental oxygen shortly thereafter and remained on supplemental oxygen on a 24-hour basis. His asbestos–related lung disease has since progressed and was established that he is likely to die within the next five years reducing his normal life expectancy.

Thus, on January 26, 2005, Joseph and Mary Garza filed their complaint for personal injury and loss of consortium against Asbestos Corporation, Limited, (“ACL”) The same action included causes of action for negligence and strict liability.

The complaint among others alleged that Joseph’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused him severe and permanent lung damage, as well as increased risk and fear of developing mesothelioma and lung cancer.

February 26, Asbestos Corporation, Limited filed an answer. The answer include a notice of request for trial by jury pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 631.2

In its answer, Asbestos Corporation, Limited denied the allegations of the complaint and listed various affirmative defenses including one stating, “Because all sales by this answering defendant were F.O.B. Quebec, Canada, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over this defendant.”

On June 14, 2006, Asbestos Corporation appeared at a pre-trial conference, after which the court continued the matter to June 19 and ordered parties to file any motions in limine by that date.

The trial began on June 20, 2006, with jury selection in the San Francisco Superior Court. A jury was enrolled to hear the case and receive testimony.

Closing arguments in the first phase of the case were presented on July 6, 2006. The following morning the jury returned a special verdict in favor of plaintiffs on all allegations.

The second phase of the case began and concluded on July 12, 2006, with the jury verdict awarded $1,178,294 in compensatory damages to Mr. James Garza. His spouse was awarded $400,000 for loss of consortium.

The jury also found that the defendant, Asbestos Corporation Limited, acted with legal malice or oppression and awarded an additional $10 million in punitive damages.

Based on the jury’s verdict, Asbestos Corporation Ltd. move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial based on the ground of lack of substantive merit.

Thus, on December 4, 2006, the trial court denied Asbestos Corporation’s motions.

Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. filed a notice of appeal on December 4, 2006, stating that it appealed “the judgment filed and entered on August 8, 2005.”

On January 10, 2007, Asbestos Corporation, Ltd filed its Amended Notice of Appeal from Judgment and Post-Judgment Orders to include appeal not only from the judgment but also from the orders denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its motion for new trial.

The appeal was taken cognizance of the California Court of Appeals First Appellate District, Division of Three.

There were several issues brought on appeal.

However, from these issues, the key issue raised was whether the trial court erred in relying on the ruling of the case entitled Arena v. Owens-Corning in their judgment.

Asbestos Corporation, Ltd contends that the asbestos is “a natural immutable mineral” which does not fit the analytical mold of products-liability principles.

The California Court of Appeals First Appellate District, Division of Three, in affirmed the trial court ruling.

The appellate court have ruled in the main, tat where plaintiff sued maker of asbestos-containing products alleging that his exposure to products caused personal injury and loss of consortium, the trial court did not err in relying on the earlier case of Arena v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1178.

The said case reasoned that raw asbestos is a product that may have a design defect and that strict liability can apply to supplier of a defective raw material. Strict liability applies to suppliers of raw asbestos because incorporating raw asbestos into an insulation product does not substantially alter” the asbestos, and because strict liability is not restricted to processed products.