Setliff

Setliff v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 204·32 Cal. App. 4th 1525·38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 763·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1697
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 1995C017713California3,694 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

Plaintiff Jerry Setliff appeals from a judgment in favor of all nonsettling defendants after their demurrers were sustained or their motions for judgment on the pleadings were granted. Plaintiff contends his amended complaint stated a cause of action for negligence and products liability under traditional theories, as well as a cause of action for products liability under alternative liability and market share theories. We agree with the lower court that plaintiff’s inability to identify the substance that caused his injuries renders his complaint fatally defective. We affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Using a Judicial Council form complaint, plaintiff brought suit against 40 named defendants, manufacturers of paint, solvents, strippers, and glue products. He alleged he had been an employee of Arne’s Paint Store in Marysville and was injured by these products. His first cause of action was for products liability based on theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. His second cause of action was for negligence.

The complaint contained the following allegations. Plaintiff “was advised by his doctors that defendants’ products may…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.