Mullen

This appeal is from a judgment dismissing an amended complaint entered following the sustaining of a general demurrer without leave to amend. The question presented is whether a cause of action has been stated according to the “market share” theory of liability adopted in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d 588 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 132 , 607 P.2d 924 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1061 ], for the removal of asbestos products from residential housing throughout the state. We hold that no such cause of action has been alleged.

Background

Measured against the familiar rules governing our review (see Sklar v. Franchise Tax Board (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 616, 621 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 42 ]), these are the salient allegations of the amended complaint:

Plaintiffs alleged that “asbestos is a known human carcinogen” and causative agent for numerous other ailments. When it deteriorates into the “friable” condition, “asbestos in homes results in the present and continuing contamination of persons and property as well as creating a serious risk of harm to persons ... as well as . . . rendering plaintiffs’ property unsafe and unreasonably dangerous.” “Asbestos is but a single ingredient in various…