 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cullen v. Industrial Holdings Corp.11/21/2002
that the injured party suffered harm; (3) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered; (4) the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct; (5) the policy of preventing future harm; (6) the extent of the burden to the defendant; and (7) the consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting potential liability. (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112-113.)
Consideration of these factors supports the trial court's conclusion that IHC owed Cullen no duty of care. Although Cullen suffered harm, the causal connection, if any, between IHC's conduct and Cullen's injury is extremely remote. The exposure for which Cullen seeks to hold IHC responsible was brief. The harm Cullen alleged resulted not from any defect or malfunction in IHC's product, but from a defect inherent in another manufacturer's product. The conduct of IHC to which Cullen seeks to attach liability, failing to warn of defects in another manufacturer's product, does not appear particularly blameworthy. The social consequences of a rule imposing a duty in these circumstances would be to widen the scope of potential liability for failure to warn far beyond persons in the distribution chain of the defective product to whole new classes of defendants whose safe products happen to be used in conjunction with a defective product made or sold by others. Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers would incur potential liabilities not only for the products they make and sell, but also for every other product with which their product might be used. As but one example, IHC points out that makers of cigarette lighters, matches, and other products associated with cigarette smoking, would thereby become liable for smoking-related injuries. The same policy considerations that militate against extending strict liability to actors outside the defective product's direct distribution chain (see Peterson v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 1198-1200), also counsel against so extending liability for negligent failure to warn.
"Under traditional tort law principles, one is ordinarily not liable for the actions of another and is under no duty to protect another from harm, in the absence of a special relationship of custody or control." (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 293.) We perceive no special relationship or other factor supporting imposition of such a duty here. Accordingly, on the undisputed facts of this case, the trial court correctly found that IHC owed no duty to Cullen to warn him about the dangerous properties of asbestos.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
Marchiano, P.J.
Stein, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|