A California appeals court has reversed a summary judgement decision favoring a manufacturer.

This decision will allow the plaintiff to return to a trial court for an asbestos mesothelioma lawsuitagainst the manufacturer for his wife’s death when she developed mesothelioma as a result of secondary asbestos exposure.

Plaintiff Michael S. worked as a mechanic and used a brake lining arcing machine made by Hennessy Industries Inc.’s (Hennessy) predecessor, the Automotive Maintenance Machinery Company (AMMCO), from 1962 to 1977.

The arcing machine’s “sole function” was to grind asbestos-containing brake linings. When in use, the machine released asbestos dust from the linings. According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, Michael’s wife was exposed to the asbestos dust that he carried home from work, causing her to develop mesothelioma and ultimately led to her death.

Michael brought the asbestos lawsuit against Hennessy for claims of negligence, strict liability, false representation, failure to warn and loss of consortium.

Hennessy asserted that it was not liable, relying on the 2012 case O’Neil v. Crane Co. (O’Neil), which held that a manufacturer may not be held in strict liability or negligence actions for harm caused by another product, unless the manufacturer’s product contributed substantially to the harm or it participated substantially in creating harmful combined use of the products, according to the opinion.

The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of Hennessy.

Court of Appeals Reverses Asbestos Case Ruling

However, not all hope was lost, as the California court of appeals sided with Michael, relying on an exception to the O’Neil rule, provided by the 2004 case, Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger (Tellez-Cordova).

Tellez-Cordova is an exception to the general rule that bars the imposition of strict liability on a manufacturer for harm that another manufacturer’s product caused. The exception applies when the defendant’s product was intended to be used with another product for the very activity that created a hazardous situation.

Michael’s asbestos litigation attorneys provided evidence that Hennessy’s predecessor’s machine was designed to grind only a certain type of drum brake lining that contained asbestos, and that he suffered exposure to the asbestos dust from the late 1960s to mid-1970s when brake linings almost universally contained asbestos.

Studies performed on the AMMCO’s machines in 1973 and 1978 revealed that the dust collection systems reduced exposure to asbestos fibers below OSHA limits, but levels were “excessive” when the system was removed. Another study in 1986 revealed that the asbestos fibers released were in excess of then permissible OSHA limits.

The court found that Hennessy had a duty to warn because the “intended use of [the] product inevitably create[d] a hazardous situation” when used in conjunction with the brake linings.

The asbestos cancer case was reversed and remanded to the trial court, denying Hennessy’s motion for summary judgement and requiring they pay for Michael’s attorney costs on appeal.

The decision follows an April ruling by another division in the same court that reversed the dismissal of another asbestos lawsuit against Hennessy (Greenberg et al. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.).

In both asbestos lawsuits, the court cited a California Supreme Court ruling from earlier this year, O’Neil v. Crane Co., that provided exceptions to the law that a company cannot be held liable for harm caused by another company’s product.

The Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuits are Case Nos. B252566 and BC555224, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four.