 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. v. FMC Corp.2/18/2003
Weller v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 991, 1010 [appellant waived argument that trial court should have instructed on defamation theory by failing to propose instruction on it].) We agree. Even if we did not, because the trial court did not have any evidence that Shell and the District were on relatively equal economic footing, it acted properly in summarily denying the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
C. Raw Material/ Component Part Doctrine
At the close of the District's case, FMC moved for non-suit and then, after the verdict was entered, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. FMC argued that because it was a supplier of a non-defective raw material, it could not be held strictly liable for the use to which a downstream manufacturer (Wesflex) put the raw material. The trial court denied these motions.
Whether a product is a "raw material" or a product sold for a particular use is a question of fact. (See Gem Developers v. Hallcraft Homesof San Diego, Inc. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 419, 432; Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1553 (Springmeyer) [manufacturer's liability for defective design "properly treated as a jury question"].) We thus review FMC's claim that the trial court erred in denying its motions under the substantial evidence standard of review.
Like the sophisticated commercial user exception, the raw material/component part defense is an exception to the product liability doctrine. (Springmeyer, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1550.) Under this exception, "component and raw material suppliers are not liable to ultimate consumers when the goods or material they supply are not inherently dangerous, they sell goods or material in bulk to a sophisticated buyer, the material is substantially changed during the manufacturing process and the supplier has a limited role in developing and designing the end product." (Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830, 839 (Artiglio).)
One of FMC's principal arguments is that the resin it sold to Wesflex was a "versatile raw material" and, therefore, it should not be held strictly liable for its performance.
Our former colleague Justice Hanlon considered the distinction between a raw material and a product designed for a particular use in Springmeyer, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 1541. Justice Hanlon explained that, in situations involving multi-use components or raw materials suitable for many purposes, "`Courts have generally given two policy reasons for why multi-use component and raw material suppliers should not have to assure the safety of their materials as used in other companies' finished products. First . . . that would require suppliers to "retain an expert in the client's field of business to determine whether the client intends to develop a safe product."' [Citation.] Suppliers of `products that have multiple industrial uses' should not be forced `to retain experts in a huge variety of areas in order to determine the possible risks associated with each potential use.' [Citation.] A second, related rationale is that `finished product manufacturers know exactly what they intend to do with a component or raw material and therefore are in a better position to guarantee that the component or raw material is suitable for their particular applications.'" (Springmeyer, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1554.)
In Springmeyer, the allegedly defective product was a fan, designed for inclusion in a particular line of Ford trucks. Because the fan manufacturer had designed the fan for this particular use, the court held that the strict liability doctrine was applicable for damages caused by its defective operat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|