Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc.
Filed September 25, 2009, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2009 SOS 5797

Defendant not Strictly Liable

Richard Merill (Richard) served in United States Navy from 1959 to 1979. He was specifically assigned to the naval’s boiler room and engine room. In these rooms, boilers, turbines, and pumps were housed. These pieces of equipment were controlled by Leslie Controls’ valves.

Richard Merrill and Tamara Merrill (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against 30 defendants including Leslie Controls, Inc. (Leslie Controls) and Elliott Company. The suit was filed when Richard sustained injuries for his exposure to asbestos-containing products aboard United States Navy vessels.

The complaint alleged that defendants had been negligent in manufacturing, supplying or distributing its products. Consequently, a strict liability case and a claim under Civil Code section 3294 for exemplary damages were filed against defendants.

Tamara, on the other hand, alleged loss of consortium.

Before the verdict, plaintiffs and 16 other defendants settled by the latter agreeing to pay plaintiffs $5,518,000.

The jury by special verdict found in favor of three other defendants but ruled defendant Leslie Controls negligent. It found Leslie Controls’ valves defective because the company failed to put a warning on the valves potential risks. Hence, it concluded that such defects substantially contributed to Richard’s injuries and found total damages suffered by him in the amount of $5,691,124.

Leslie Controls and Elliott Company moved for summary judgment and for summary adjudication of Tamara’s claim of loss of consortium.

The trial court denied Leslie Controls’ motion for summary judgment, but granted its motion for summary adjudication of Tamara Merrill’s loss of consortium cause of action.

Leslie Controls filed a timely appeal.

The California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and found as follows:

• Leslie Controls did not design, manufacture, supply, or install flange gaskets attached to its valves or asbestos insulation used on its valves and piping connected to those valves. Hence, it could not be held strictly liable for Richard’s exposure to asbestos.
  
  Moreover, the presence of asbestos-containing products in its valves did not place them in the chain of distribution.
• Leslie Controls’ product did not cause asbestos exposure. The subsequent injury was caused by products made or supplied by other manufacturers and used in conjunction with that of Leslie Controls. Consequently, it had no duty to warn of hazards posed by other manufacturers’ products.
• Leslie Controls could not be held liable as a component part manufacturer where plaintiffs did not provide evidence that defects in the former’s product caused the injury.
  
  This was true even though the use of asbestos-containing materials with its product was foreseeable and its anticipated use of such materials with its product.