Watts v. Ferrellgas

Filed 4/10/06 Watts v. Ferrellgas, L.P. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Chesley N. McKay, Jr., Brian C. Yep and Alan S. Rosenfield, Judges. Reversed and remanded.

Law Offices of Fletcher, White & Adair, John R. Fletcher and Paul S. White for Defendant and Appellant.

Mitchell S. Wagner for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Ferrellgas, L. P., appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in this products liability action that awarded Ronald Watts $406,244.22 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. Ferrellgas contends the trial court prejudicially erred in granting Watts's motion for summary adjudication directed solely to Ferrellgas's liability for selling a defective product because the motion did not dispose of an entire cause of action and triable issues of fact exist as to Watts's comparative fault. Ferrellgas also asserts reversal is required because the jury did not make any findings as to Ferrellgas's liability for failure-to-warn, the cause of action upon which Watts's claim for punitive damages depended. We agree with each of these contentions and reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Accident

In May 2002 Watts purchased from Ferrellgas a propane tank to fuel a new furnace. The tank included a pressure-relief valve, manufactured by Sherwood, Harsco Corporation Gas & Fluid Control Group (Sherwood).[1]

In July 2002 Watts's wife told Watts she had heard a hissing sound coming from the propane tank. Watts decided to investigate by putting his face close to the tank to determine whether he could smell propane or hear the sound his wife had described. At that moment, the tank's pressure-relief valve suddenly released, discharging propane into Watts's eye.

2. The Lawsuit

Watts sued Ferrellgas in a products liability action, alleging the pressure-relief valve was defective. In an attachment to his Judicial Council Form Complaint, Watts alleged he was also entitled to punitive damages because Ferrellgas knew consumers did not appreciate the dangers associated with the discharge of a pressure-relief valve; Ferrellgas had a duty to warn consumers of this danger and to advise them to stay clear of the pressure-relief valve under all circumstances; and Ferrellgas acted with malice in failing to give those warnings.

3. Watts's Summary Adjudication Motion

On May 7, 2003 Watts moved for summary adjudication based on Ferrellgas's admission in written discovery that the valve contained a manufacturing defect.[2] Watts's moving papers also included his own declaration describing the accident and asserting that Ferrellgas had not warned him of the dangers associated with pressure-relief valves. The motion did not address Watts's damages.

Ferrellgas opposed the motion on several grounds: Because the motion failed to address damages, Ferrellgas argued it did not dispose of an entire cause of action and thus was not authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1).[3] In a related argument, Ferrellgas asserted triable issues of fact existed as to whether Watts was comparatively at fault. Ferrellgas additionally argued the motion failed to identify whether it was directed to the defective product claim, the failure-to-warn claim or both.[4]

In his reply Watts clarified his motion was directed solely to Ferrellgas's liability for product defect, and not to the separate failure-to-warn claim. Watts also included with his reply Ferrellgas's answers to special interrogatory numbers 12 and 13 in which Ferrellgas admitted the pressure-relief valve contained a manufacturing defect.[5]

4. The Trial Court's Ruling on Watts's Motion

The trial court granted Watts's motion, rejecting Ferrellgas's argument the motion was deficient because it failed to address damages and its contention triable issues of fact existed as to Watts's comparative fault. Based on Ferrellgas's interrogatory responses admitting the pressure-relief valve did not perform as designed,[6] the court concluded Ferrellgas was strictly liable as a matter of law for the manufacturing defect and Watts was not negligent in any respect: â€