Hatcher v. Ford Motor

Filed 6/28/06 Hatcher v. Ford Motor CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

I.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Auburn Hatcher (Hatcher) was diagnosed with mesothelioma after many years of working with asbestos-containing products, both in his employment and while maintaining and repairing his own automobiles. Hatcher and his wife Shirley Hatcher (the Hatchers) appeal from the judgment in favor of Ford Motor Company and DaimlerChrysler Corporation (collectively, the Companies) following the trial court's grant of the Companies' motion to strike two novel causes of action for negligence and products liability. The Hatchers alleged that the Companies required the use of asbestos-containing parts made by third parties in the brake and clutch systems of their products, and therefore, were liable for failure to warn about asbestos exposure during the replacement of those parts. They argue that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of an expert witness whose testimony was offered to prove those two causes of action, and erred in subsequently striking the claims. We affirm.

II.

BACKGROUND

The Hatchers brought the underlying action for personal injuries arising out of Hatcher's exposure to asbestos-containing products against numerous defendants.[1] In addition to causes of action for false representation and intentional tort, the Hatchers' first amended complaint alleged causes of action against the Companies for negligence and products liability. In these two causes of action, they alleged that the Companies' clutch and brake assemblies were defective because the Companies â€