Morton v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. case brief
33 Cal. App. 4th 1529, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 22 (1995)SYNOPSIS:
Appellant asbestos manufacturer sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which awarded judgment to respondent surviving spouse in her strict products liability action for damages her husband suffered from asbestos exposure. Appellant objected to the consumer expectation test to determine product defect and preclusion of its state-of-the-art evidence.
OVERVIEW: Appellant asbestos manufacturer sought review of a judgment entered for respondent surviving spouse in her strict product liability action for damages her husband suffered from asbestos exposure. Appellant contended that it was error to apply the consumer expectation test to determine product defect and to preclude the use of appellant's state-of-the-art evidence in opposition to the consumer expectation test.
HOLDING:
The court modified the damages but otherwise affirmed the judgment for respondent, finding the consumer expectation test was properly applied to determine the product defect because there were neither complicated design considerations, nor obscure components, nor esoteric circumstances surrounding the use of the asbestos and because the product failure was beyond the legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions of an ordinary consumer.
ANALYSIS:
The court concluded that state-of-the-art evidence was immaterial because evidence as to what the scientific community knew about the dangers of asbestos and when they knew it was not relevant to show what respondent's husband, as an ordinary consumer, reasonably expected in terms of safety.
RULES:
-The consumer expectations test provides that a product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
-This test derives from the warranty heritage upon which the product liability doctrine partially rests and recognizes that implicit in a product's presence on the market is a representation that it will safely do the job for which it was built.
OUTCOME: The court modified the damage award but otherwise affirmed the judgment in favor of respondent surviving spouse in her strict products liability action for damages her husband suffered from asbestos exposure. The court found that the consumer expectation test was the proper method to determine defective product design and that state-of-the-art evidence was irrelevant to the consumer expectation test.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment