Defendant T.J. Maxx of California, LLC’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Respondents: Plaintiffs Wahl, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant T.J. Maxx of California, LLC’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is DENIED.

Judicial Notice is taken of Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1-2. (Ev. Code 452(b).)

Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections are overruled.

Defendant’s evidentiary objection No. 1 is sustained; remaining objections are overruled.

MERITS:

A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP 437c(p)(2).)

Defendant moves for summary adjudication of the 1st cause of action for Negligence-Products Liability (Issues 1-4), the 2nd cause of action for Strict Products Liability (Issues 5-7), and the 3rd cause of action for NIED (Issue 8).

Although Defendant seeks summary adjudication of seven products liability issues, the motion itself does not analyze the issues separately. Instead, the issues are lumped together, and Defendant appears to be making the same arguments regarding both products liability claims:
1) the fuel gel and the fire pot are each completed products and not component parts of another;
2) the fire pot itself is not defectively designed or manufactured;
3) TJ Maxx does not owe a duty to warn; and
4) TJ Maxx was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.

A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article it places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. The purpose of such liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. Strict liability has been extended to retailers. As an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise, they too should bear the cost of injuries from defective products. (Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262.) Strict liability encompasses all injuries caused by a defective product, even those traceable to a defective component part that was supplied by another. However, the reach of strict liability is not limitless. We have never held that strict liability extends to harm from entirely distinct products that the consumer can be expected to use with, or in, the defendant’s nondefective product. Instead, we have consistently adhered to the Greenman formulation requiring proof that the plaintiff suffered injury caused by a defect in the defendant’s own product. (O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335.)

Citing O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, Defendant contends that “mere compatibility for use with… components is not enough to render them defective.” Defendant submits evidence that the fire pot was purchased as a stand-alone product, and does not require fuel gel to function. (Defense Separate Statement (DSS) 3, 5.) Therefore, according to Defendant, it is only duty bound to warn consumers about hazards inherent in this particular product. Here, Defendant contends the hazards come exclusively from the fuel gel, not the fire pot. Further, Defendant contends Plaintiffs were the sole cause of their injuries. The instructions on the fuel gel clearly warned against adding fuel gel to a burning fire. (DSS 8.) Mrs. Gebele admitted that she failed to inspect the pot’s cylinder for flame prior to refilling. (DSS 13.) The court finds Defendant has met its initial burden.

In opposition, Plaintiffs produce the following evidence: the fire pot design makes it difficult for a consumer to accurately determine whether there are flames or smoldering material inside the reservoir (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (PSS) 34); the fuel gel reservoir was specifically designed for the purpose of being fueled and refueled with fuel gel (PSS 8); the fire pot was defectively designed and responsible for Plaintiffs’ injuries (PSS 12); TJ Maxx bought the fire pot from Birdbrain Inc (PSS 4); Birdbrain placed instructions inside the fire pot, instructing the consumer to place fuel gel in the fuel gel reservoir and to “Never add Fuel Gel to an open fire or flame as there is a danger of flash fire and sever burns.” The instructions also informed the consumer “Always use the snuffer to completely extinguish any flame in the fuel reservoir before refilling with Fuel Gel. (Do not assume that the flame is out because you cannot see it….snuff for 15 seconds it to be sure!) (PSS 4-7); TJ Maxx sold the firepot without the packaging or instructions (PSS 47); and TJ Maxx had prior notice of the defects (PSS 74).

The court finds that O’Neil v. Crane Co. is distinguishable because here Defendant’s liability is based on the exceptions enumerated in O’Neil: “a product manufacturer generally may not be held strictly liable for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product. The only exceptions to this rule arise when the Defendant bears some direct responsibility for the harm, either defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm (see Tellez-Cordova, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 585), or because the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products (see DeLeon, supra, 148 Cal. App. 3d at p. 343).” Here, Plaintiffs identified design defects within the fire pot itself. The fire pot and reservoir create difficulties in detecting heat, flame, and smoldering material inside the reservoir. (PSS 34.) Further, like DeLeon v. Commercial Manufacturing & Supply Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 336 and Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co. (2004) 129 Cal.App.4th 577, the intended use of the product inevitably creates a hazardous situation, and it is reasonable to expect the manufacturer to give warnings. The fire pot was specifically designed for use with fuel gel (PSS 8). Further, Plaintiffs presented evidence that TJ Maxx sold the fire pot without the instructions that came with it. (PSS 4-7, 47.)

As to causation, Plaintiffs present evidence that the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by visibility problems inside the fuel gel reservoir that made refueling the pot a dangerous activity (PSS 84), and had Mrs. Gebele seen flame/combustible material, she never would have refueled the pot (PSS 89).

Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiffs have produced evidence creating triable issues as to whether the fire pot was defectively designed, whether TJ Maxx failed to adequately warn of hazards inherent in its product as well as the foreseeable combined use of the fire pot and fuel gel, and whether TJ Maxx was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

Summary adjudication of Issues 1-7 is DENIED.

Defendant also seeks summary adjudication of Issue 8, Laurence and Michelle Wahl’s NIED claim, because it is derivative to Plaintiff Delaney Wahl’s product liability claims. As triable issues exist regarding the product liability claims, summary adjudication of Issue 8 is also DENIED.