California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
[REVIEW GRANTED BY CAL. SUPREME COURT]
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC452512, Joseph E. DiLoreto and Ross M. Klein, Judges.
Metzger Law Group, Raphael Metzger; Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Alexander Law Group and Richard Alexander for the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, Dr. Jerrold Abraham, Dr. Richard W. Clapp, Dr. Ronald Crystal, Dr. David A. Eastmond, Dr. Arthur L. Frank, Dr. Robert J. Harrison, Dr. Ronald Melnick, Dr. Lee Newman, Dr. Stephen M. Rappaport, Dr. David Joseph Ross, and Dr. Janet Weiss as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Snider, Diehl & Rasmussen, Stephen C. Snider, Trenton M. Diehl and Kristina O. Lambert for Defendant and Respondent J.R. Simplot Company.
Schaffer, Lax, McNaughton & Chen, Jill A. Franklin and Yaron F. Dunkel for Defendant and Respondent Scott Sales Co.
ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.
J.R. Simplot Company (Simplot) and Scott Sales Co. (Scott) supplied silica sand to Francisco Uriarte’s employer, for use
as sandblasting media. Uriarte filed suit against Simplot and Scott, alleging that the airborne toxins produced by sandblasting with their silica sand caused him to develop interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and other illnesses. Simplot and Scott successfully moved for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the component parts doctrine, which provides that “the manufacturer of a component part is not liable for injuries caused by the finished product into which the component has been incorporated unless the component itself was defective and caused harm.” (O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 355 [135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987] (O'Neil).)
We reverse with directions to deny Simplot’s and Scott’s motions. We conclude that because Uriarte’s injuries were allegedly caused by the use of the silica sand during the manufacturing process, rather than by the finished product that was produced by that process, the component parts doctrine does not apply. In so concluding, we join Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1239 [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 513] (Ramos) in respectfully disagreeing with the interpretation and application of ...