In a unanimous 64 page decision, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four in Los Angeles affirmed the defense verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation and Ford Motor Company in a lawsuit brought by Marline and Joseph Petitpas. This decision addressed a number of significant issues impacting product and premises liability cases. Plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Petitpas' mesothelioma arose in part by her bystander exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, gaskets and clutches when she visited Joseph Petitpas at an Enco service station in Pomona, California, and from asbestos taken home on the clothes of Joseph when they began dating, but were not yet married or living together. As to Exxon, the Court of Appeal examined three separate and independent issues.
First, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs' strict liability causes of action against Exxon, a premises defendant. Second, the Court affirmed the order granting summary adjudication of Plaintiffs' take-home liability claims because Marline was not a member of Joseph's household when he allegedly was exposed to asbestos at the service station. Third, the Court affirmed the Jury's unanimous verdict that in the late 1960's Exxon neither knew, nor through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that work with automotive products created an unreasonable risk of harm in the late 1960's.
As to strict products liability, the Court held that Exxon was a provider of automobile repair services, not a supplier of...
