Bettencourt

Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.

Good Law
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167·205 Cal. App. 4th 1103
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 2012No. A129379; No. A130211; No. A131063; No. A131071California8,897 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jones, J.

These consolidated appeals seek reversal of judgments entered in favor of respondent Hennessy Industries, Inc. (Hennessy). 1 Hennessy, the manufacturer of brakeshoe grinding machines, is one of a large number of defendants against whom plaintiffs brought personal injury or wrongful death and survival actions. Plaintiffs claimed the use of Hennessy’s machines to grind asbestos-containing brake linings resulted in exposure to airborne asbestos fibers that caused injury. Plaintiffs sought recovery under several theories, including strict products liability and negligence.

Hennessy moved for judgment on the pleadings in all of plaintiffs’ cases, arguing it could not be held liable as a matter of law because it did not manufacture or distribute the asbestos-containing brake linings, which Hennessy claimed were the cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. The trial court agreed, finding that plaintiffs’ injuries were the result of defects in the products of other manufacturers for which Hennessy was not responsible. It granted Hennessy’s motions and denied plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints. The court entered judgment in Hennessy’s favor on all of plaintiffs’ causes of action,…

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.