Bell v. Industrial Vangas, Inc.

Appellant William Bell was employed by respondent Industrial Vangas, Inc. (Vangas), as a route salesman. He was severely injured in a fire which occurred when he delivered a flammable gas to the premises of a customer—Long Chemical, Inc.

Bell brought suit, charging Vangas and Long Chemical, Inc., and others as joint tortfeasors with strict “manufacturer’s” liability as that term has been defined in California products liability law. (See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 63 [ 27 Cal. Rptr. 697 , 377 P.2d 897 , 13 A.L.R.3d 1049 ]; Vandermark v. Ford Mo *271 tor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 896 , 391 P.2d 168 ]; Price v. Shell Oil Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 245, 251-254 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 178 , 466 P.2d 722 ]; Douglas v. E. & J. Gallo Winery (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 103, 107 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 797 ]; Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) pp. 663-665.) He alleged they “were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, purchasing, producing, constructing, assembling, processing, preparing, testing, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, installing, endorsing, selling, leasing, bailing, licensing the use of, and otherwise marketing” defective…

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds, contrary to both the great weight of authority and the express language of controlling California statutes, that an employer is liable in tort to any employee injured in the course of his employment as a result of defective products or equipment manufactured by the employer. In my view, the workers’ compensation laws afford the sole and exclusive remedy to the employee against his employer in such a situation.

Employer Yangas’ contention that employee Bell’s workers’ compensation remedy is exclusive is statutorily founded. The Legislature has been very clear. Labor Code section 3600 provides: “Liability for the compensation provided by this division, [is] in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person (Italics added.) If this statutory expression is not sufficiently specific, the following section, 3601, subdivision (a), recites that “ Where the conditions of compensation exist, the right to recover such compensation, pursuant to the provisions of this division is, ... the exclusive remedy for injury or death of an employee against the employer ....” (Italics added.)

The majority opinion suggests that the employment…