Lawyers

Representative Experience

• Appellate Victory Limiting Product Liability Claims: In Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, the court held that a defendant is liable for that defendant’s products only, not the products of others that the defendant did not manufacture or supply. Even if the defendant knows that the other products are dangerous, and will be used with the defendant’s. Plaintiffs alleged that decedent Reginald Taylor was exposed to asbestos-containing products while working in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s. Multiple defendant corporations supplied the U.S. Navy with various pieces of equipment utilized in ship propulsion systems, and some of the equipment had asbestos-containing parts. The asbestos-containing products to which Mr. Taylor was exposed (such as insulation and some replacement parts) were used on or near the defendant’s equipment, but were manufactured and supplied by third parties, not by the defendants. Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of clients Ingersoll-Rand Company and Leslie Controls, Inc. that liability should be limited to those in the chain of distribution of the products that contained asbestos. Agreeing with this position, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and the court of appeal affirmed.



• Second Published Appellate Decision in 2009 on Asbestos Product Liability: Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (Sept. 25, 2009) 2009 WL 3051534 endorsed and expressly followed Gordon & Rees' victory earlier this year in Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, which recognized a “bright-line legal distinction tied to the injury-producing product in the stream of commerce” (emphasis in original). In each case, plaintiffs asserted asbestos-related injury. In each case, the asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiff was exposed were used on or near the defendant’s equipment, but were manufactured and supplied by third parties. As Merrill held, “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of linking the injury-producing product with a particular entity in the chain of distribution.” Because “plaintiffs have not shown that [Gordon & Rees client] Leslie Controls manufactured, supplied, or distributed the products which caused” injury, “Leslie Controls was not required to give warnings about those other products.” The holding of Taylor and Merrill is that manufacturers are not liable for products they did not supply, even if the defendant knows that the other products are dangerous, and will be used with the defendant’s, and even if those products are replacement parts (e.g., internal gaskets and packing) that are identical to parts originally supplied by the manufacturer. Merrill also extended Taylor in at least one significant respect. Taylor had expressly addressed failure to warn claims only, because only that theory was at issue there. Merrill held that “The Taylor analysis also applies to design defect.”