Woodard v. Crane Co. 8/25/11 CA2/4

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2011 » Woodard v. Crane Co. 8/25/11 CA2/4

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B219366

Case Date: 11/16/2011

Preview:Filed 8/25/11 Woodard v. Crane CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

DENNIS H. WOODARD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CRANE CO., Defendant and Respondent.

B219366 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC387774)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jane L. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed. Waters, Kraus & Paul, Paul C. Cook, and Michael B. Gurien for Plaintiffs and Appellants. K&L Gates, Robert E. Feyder, Geoffrey M. Davis, Nicholas P. Vari (Pro Hac Vice), and Michael J. Ross for Defendant and Respondent.

In this asbestos product liability action, defendant Crane Co. successfully moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 570 (Taylor), which affirmed a summary judgment for Crane on the ground that it had no duty to warn the United States Navy of the potential dangers of asbestos-containing products manufactured and supplied by third parties. In this appeal fro1m the judgment, plaintiff Dennis H. Woodard argues that Taylor was erroneously decided and should not be followed.1 We reject his contentions and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

From 1961 to 1965, Woodard served onboard two Navy vessels built between 1943 and 1945: the USS Rogers, a steam-operated destroyer, and the USS Salisbury Sound, a steam-operated sea plane tender. The propulsion systems of both vessels contained metal valves that Crane had manufactured and supplied to the Navy in the 1940s. It is undisputed that all of the asbestos-containing gaskets and packing materials on both vessels were manufactured by others, and that any asbestos-containing materials supplied by Crane in the 1940s had been replaced with similar products manufactured and supplied by third parties prior to Woodards service in the 1960s. Accordingly, there is no evidence that any of the injury-causing asbestos products was manufactured or supplied by Crane. Upon being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007, Woodard sued Crane (and others not involved in this appeal) for negligence and strict product liability in 2008. The issue is presently before the California Supreme Court. (O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1019, review granted Dec. 23, 2009, S177401; Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 262, review granted Feb. 3, 2010, S178957; Walton v. The William Powell Co. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1470, review granted June 30, 2010, S183059.) Dennis H. Woodards wife, plaintiff Myra J. Woodard, will not be mentioned in this opinion unless necessary.
1

2

This appeal concerns only the strict product liability claim against Crane.2 Recovery in strict product liability is permitted for three types of defects: manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn. (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) In his complaint, Woodard alleged that Cranes valves were defective based on theories of defective design and failure to warn. Although the jury found there was no design defect, it found that the valves were defective as a result of Cranes failure to warn the Navy of the dangers of asbestos products manufactured and supplied by third parties. Based solely on a theory of failure to warn, the jury returned a strict liability verdict against Crane. Of the damages award of $14.4 million to Woodard and $2.5 million to his wife, the jury assessed Cranes liability at 0.5 percent. Crane moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on Taylor, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 564, which affirmed a summary judgment for Crane on the ground that it had no duty to warn the Navy of the dangers of asbestos products manufactured and supplied by third parties. Based on facts indistinguishable from those of this case,3 the trial court in Taylor granted Cranes motion for summary judgment "on the ground that, under California law, a manufacturers duty to warn extends only to the manufacturers own products." (Id. at p. 571.) The appellate court in Taylor affirmed the summary judgment, stating "that the trial court was correct in concluding that California law

2 3

The jury rejected the negligence claim, which is no longer at issue.

In Taylor, the plaintiffs late husband (Taylor) had served during the 1960s on the USS Hornet, which was built in the 1940s. The valves in the Hornets propulsion system had been manufactured and supplied to the Navy by Crane in the 1940s. Taylor was exposed to asbestos fibers on the Hornet during the 1960s, while removing and replacing asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, and insulation materials from the valves. After Taylor was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he and his wife sued Crane (and others) for strict product liability based on theories of defective design and failure to warn. As in this case, it was undisputed that Crane did not manufacture or supply the injury-causing materials, because "by the time Mr. Taylor served aboard the Hornet, all of the original asbestos-containing parts of [Cranes] equipment would have been removed." (Taylor, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 572.)

3

imposed no duty on respondents to warn of the hazards inherent in defective products manufactured or supplied by third parties." (Ibid.) The trial court in this case granted Cranes motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, stating that it "has reviewed Taylor and agrees with Defendant; it is controlling precedent. [

Download Woodard v. Crane Co. 8/25/11 CA2/4.pdf