Justice Carol Corrigan, writing for the unanimous court, said a broad rule plaintiffs were pushing for "would represent unprecedented expansion" of strict products liability.

Kate Moser

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court protected manufacturers from liability in a high-stakes asbestos case on Thursday, foreclosing a potential avenue of recovery for plaintiffs.

The case drew a variety of amici curiae, including giant manufacturing firms that worried a decision favorable to plaintiffs would expand strict products liability and raise broader implications about the meaning of a defective product.

But the court allayed those fears.

While California law has long said manufacturers have a duty to ensure the safety of their products, wrote Justice Carol Corrigan for the unanimous court, the broad rule that the plaintiffs pushed for "would represent unprecedented expansion" of strict products liability.

"Nor would public policy be served by requiring manufacturers to warn about the dangerous propensities of products they do not design, make or sell," Corrigan wrote.

At issue was whether manufacturers of equipment used on U.S. Navy warships could be held liable for asbestos-related injuries and death because their products were routinely used with products made of asbestos.

The plaintiffs in the wrongful death suit are the family of former naval officer Patrick O'Neil, who died of mesothelioma in 2004 when he was 62.

Their lawyers, and amici curiae backing them, had urged the court to uphold a Second District Court of Appeals panel's decision that the manufacturers — knowing that their products and replacement parts would be used with asbestos — could be held liable for the implicit dangers.

But the high court spiked that theory, saying it could lead to absurd results. "It would require match manufacturers to warn about the dangers of igniting dynamite, for example," Corrigan wrote.

Manufacturers can't be held liable in such a case, the court concluded, "unless the defendant's own product contributed substantially to the harm, or the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products."

The court also went beyond the court of appeal's decision, rejecting the plaintiffs' negligence claims.

It's a scholarly opinion, "digging deep into both the facts and the law, including cases from other jurisdictions and a nuanced discussion of the policies underlying strict products liability," said Horvitz & Levy partner Curt Cutting, who was on the appellate team for manufacturer Crane Co.

Nicholas Vari, a partner in the Pittsburgh office of K&L Gates, argued the case for Crane. Laurie Hepler, a partner in Carroll, Burdick & McDonough's San Francisco office, argued the case on behalf of Warren Pumps.

Jeffrey Ehrlich of The Ehrlich Law Firm in Encino, who represented the plaintiffs on appeal, deferred to the trial lawyers for comment.

"Obviously, we're disappointed by the outcome on behalf of our clients, the O'Neils," said Michael Armitage, managing attorney for the Los Angeles office of Waters, Kraus & Paul. "But we feel some arguments were left open by the court in their decision, and we plan to aggressively pursue those types of cases."

In particular, he pointed to a footnote in the opinion that says "a stronger argument for liability might be made in the case of a product that required the use of a defective part in order to operate." The footnote goes on to make clear the court isn't opining on how questions arising from such an argument should be resolved.

"We do think that factual situations do exist where the equipment manufacturer actually specified that an asbestos component part be used in its equipment in order for it to function properly," Armitage said.