Exhibit,Appendix: LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                REDWOOD CITY, CA 34061-3436
TELEPHONE (650) 365-7715

HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP
1775 WOODSIDE ROAD, SUITE 200

HENRY D. ROME, ESQ. [SBN: 48567]
RYAN KUJAWSKI, ESQ. [SBN: 226873]
HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP
1775 Woodside Road, Suite 200

Redwood City, CA 94061-3436

Telephone: (650) 365-7715

Attorneys for Defendant
IMO INDUSTRIES INC.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUN 18 2010

Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
. Deputy Clerk

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA,
' Plaintiff,
V5.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (Bé¢P), et al.

Case No. CGC-07-274230

EXHIBIT F TO THE COMPENDIUM OF
OUT-OF-STATE AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT IMO
INDUSTRIES INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
Defendants. ADJUDICATION
Date: September 9, 2010
Time: 9:30 am.
Dept: 220
Judge: Hon. Harold Kahn
EXHIBIT F

1

EXHIBIT F TO THE COMPENDIUM OF OUT-OF-STATE AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT IMO
INDUSTRIES INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION‘WALTON v, HARNISCHDDG)
Dates Ths S20 220 (F=LAhype et fotoaty 1070)

Judgment was Inpntticient asp rnattar oF
Tair bananas ehe felled to cotatlish fhe “i+
aollig”” dlamant of ker prima foelp onse,

“Wile alsp soverts hut Husband Zatodl to
roomesh thot, enforuornant of fs Plorkda
Judgment be stayed! enl ipiled. to mypent
The domedecation cree, Ehe vegas thet
‘Husband failed to Suveko the aber provi
slong ag tha stabate, Soe Tan OER, &
Ren.Cobe ANN, § BE UBL) HEODEKO) (Ver-
am 1086) Bhs elso,vontends hab Sins
amd oxncot oumplaia ‘to thks omart of the
Gomestiontlon ordi avsune ft wos wt
poulud, “We ace avt cariaia thet the Gomes
‘Hontion vriler was eppedlabl, However,
since. we hve lela thot the order did not
satebiisn ‘ineiliy”” 0B tha DloriBx jue.
sont, iecMlows theb mother fhe debe seb
Hosbuml hn fhe burden to wosk x ntoy nor.
Sha question of appmlibiity naein to ba
aoctded, oy

We hold ash the tri epuct rad in,
gemting ‘Wigs motion for n suomamisy
fulgment, Wa xaverce ww vameuil for
Frozsndings conefeton’ with tis opinion,

Weds and Nanoy WAVEON, Appslinnte,
y
BABNISCHEDGHE d/b/n P&H
Orany, dppuller,
‘No, de-Be-On2D-CV,
Kout of Aypeatn of ows,
“Ban Antonie,
Ualy BI, 1900, *
Raheny Denied Gogh, 14, 1000,

‘Wnkee brovghty sult, egafast arms’
mmamufnoinuer md offocs Yow injure snl

1 We Bled, Seo Trees on Rascoon du
9 35.003|0) (Vernon LUG),

1906 tla
23. Buatlon 35.003) provides thot. ed farohgh
ju Jact tu the sere provailurey,
‘etansts, und proccadings for oopenlng, vaca
tom, oF my i To ee ection
SE B06 lowe tire debtor ty obtain m slay of
"by, showing a grmend on

fozed i ik ah
he Ea eg gudgmu of te court

Ter, BBG

)

* foroil phon nylon strep Hwlilug Yond of to
{rahe bauil Joni Yo from orana, The AGEN
District Comrly Kere County, Steybou B.
‘Ablop, 3, extavedl commary jadgmont tr |
Gmannfectore's Zevon. ‘Worker pppsaled,
The Opaxb of Aypeals, Onrry Jy held thate
(@) wane momulacinrar Koel nw oty to
wexn wore sbont eigeine ib di nob meme
Javtive, inomrporsts into oxena, or plave
Soy atranta of popmaeeee, and (2) ornne aus
‘nobamnse in tao of worlen's Snjacies mader
erienes ‘prenentad on ouammsry judment
mofo.

Afthmeil,

aPradueds Debi ed

Meowfuutoeer of urane bad ao faty to
“yank on inpleuo unex of its exene chout
regiag i did unb mamafauboxo, Snoprpoeata,
into Sts cemns, or pine Soka stoesaa of com
thtrge, endl fins pwall uo diaby with xanpest
4p hajaries sutfeied by workar witon nylon
atop Hegod to Toad of tin bene, guuboer
Toad ta detach Store orana,

2, Noglgenme C=ia00s0)

. “Whather duty exiets Ss question of law
tovbe dobldu’ by woart,

8. Juliet S185, 8021)

Péfenduntie entified to sufmmexy judg:
-vmepb ia tort case if couse in Soobls negated
‘hy bummary jadgaaenh eyidency. *

4 Products Liability 6-35

‘Wuuontroyorted teutimuny of crane
exatni Hrab boom and wink Ieyer umateo

Javan way eansall ox coneibut! to wocfdont
cobueing whos aylon ofrep holiing Tost,
bola onrypovtod detarminttion the crane

Iplstatuse neplestod to foods fa Hoe stile
‘prmedura by which Yeo dobtursmalgth wrsest.

+ quubdofonsesor'selea pay vFeriorcsment As |

Hid by the Houston Gout of Apptely, thie

oppbsiea erentan a procedval guondary for Hae

Kt Dong,
‘ria Swed ¥%, 10D (CER ARE on th
Dia) 2906, vito nine). a tila appeal, We
sra0d ok erasing whet exact proved, Lt
Thy cube peed 19 acalew lay of anorebroem,* faa Joad of thr ond pttadbed ty

B25 Ter.

eukiels were nob amse tn dett of injoniea”
suffered by worker who wea hit by Joni
‘ayn if opersitor opald bh deomiad intaroatat
witmess, boumuse of his shsins 02 cnlefand-
autin worker's leweulls oporatue'a testimo-
ay clamdy ond dixenthy esuortedl Brute, woe
‘nul fa Zorm oF or oxpolasiony, ened
‘was type of pvideaea thas could have pam
crondily sonverted oxpori’s testizwony that
crane ‘Wes wrensondbly dangers Whew
vwmed fn tamdem with nylon ekcep ad nob
sonkrovert operator's diveot * teotimony,
sigue it di2 aot state thet boom ov winch ©
unateols were"defeciive. «

1%, Lowe Bratton, Bois Brattun, ‘the
Beaton Birm, Wiliam Powers, Ji, Ametin,
for nppallants,

Cathy 3. Shesten, Richaed N, ranels,
Sry Plabirsti, GHbsi & Allen, Ben Autonte,
for apgelles, :

a BENVDL, BURT unl OBE,

+ OPINED .

CARR, Santica,

{his is a eppe Seo w mammary Judge
amon in wprodata ebilty eaze, ‘fils ons
srjuss ont of mm accldent thet vested in *
injuries to wppilleat ‘Welton ond
which onmurred When @ nylon pbcop rigged
Opal ondatared, Gskdmdad, eu
algna,
ee spelen Herniathiteger d/b/e
P&E Orang, Egle and oaumed tie Tonio}

tin to drop om Moxle Walt, Walton suit

ais wits, Mandy "Walton, aloo om nppeDuuls
tn tha appunl, bong ontb ogatnal nypel-

Jeo, Mic Walton ompluyen, the owe of”

She oraue, fhe plleyel mannzactarer wud

seller off th nylon bap aed to rie the
+ oad pf Bo, und the park tnt provided fhe

gglon oizop, Appellants? colt agntnob op
pollen, bevell on negligence afd oisiet Hebe

{by ellygad that eppelivo Zell to wien or

to provide inctmuntious regording rigehug of

fh trae ond thst tie ormve was defoctive
dine to the plosernmct of fhe whoh und
povm extender contre,

8 IDNG)) Hesokell ue Bley

496 BOUKE WUSURN REPOREGR, 28° SORTER

Ayndlise led a mpfion for oxmemnry
fndigment on thy folowing gcomndet
Ye sgpelles had no doby to worn or ine
struc meee of the creme In emoption
with zegerd to rigeing uf fhe Tord in

i
2 tho drena in question operelal prope
aly snd in no way oontiibutad to ar
srruoed Shp ile in question,
"Th tee) nomeh granted appellee's wan
aory jodgmonb motion wn savered oppel-
Tifa! ony agnfast appolioe, rom, tha
aunty fuiigment balay, appellants bring
fitn mmpesl, aleping, fa feels pole post of

. pizoy, thet the fled toast ened fu granting:

sunminy judgment for spgéliee, We el
iim
Duy to Warn. or Eastrut
11) he rok fosug this appesd resents:
jn vihethor oppsllsa, ee w oxamo rianufnotur-
ey bade duby to wea andl Instruct ghout
puciipclar type of digging prodnoty cy
‘pylon ebrep, oven hough the summary
judgmoont opidense da mmeontrovertad theb
mppellse dil nob manniacinxe, distribute,
sell, or otherwias plava the nylon strap oF ,
any oiler zigging matarfel inte fhe shrew
vf commmerce..

Onerts In other juvisiictions heve ex
prewely held the e mannfactorer does ot
jmve @ daty.to warn, cx instruct about en +
olor Ynewndactoret’s’ produsiy, even
‘though fhose profimats might be weed by
compotion with the 7omunluelurer’a own
produeh, See Bowglmon % Consrat jto-
tora Corp, TH) TBA 3181, 1988 (ith Ob,

Himbor, Tac, BIB
Mom, 623, 437 MD2a e7d, 2876 (LOBED),
+ Jn tho Baaghmm cnse, the pleiptitt yes
Sohured "by the exylostya ueparation of &
mmitiplece track wheel zim, saneuiily. 1
‘you vnileyatad that General Motors Coupos ”
zation had nob manufaokuced ov designed
the yhotl rim nsemnbly, wor bod Genexa)
Motors intorporated sny such assembly
Into its truck. Nevartheless, tha plointiti +
bud General Motora bocuvas St had yen
fooboxed the track on which ¢ha plainkiit
‘yn planting the wheal when tha axgloston
oecurzed, ‘The district court grauted sum
aascy judgment fn Zevor uf Gouexal Motors, WALTON v.

: HATNISCAPHEDR
loss Ta Wad 223 [NowNype—San Anta 285

ia git on the grownd thas Genet Motoro
pad no duty fo wena p2 possible denzora
eit by roelscomunt ynrks thet $b did uot
jacign, menefeckere, or yinee into the
shea of ovmmeroe, Jn wiiirmiog fhe de
lslon, the omar giateds
‘Bhuos the axpilodibys xine iu question woe @
xeplavament vomponent peri and pnt
orlgindl equipment, Bauglmusn's position
‘would xespuke a mianiackarer to tent alt
‘pusolble yoplscament ports made by ony
yosuodactorer to debetinine thelr usfaby
and ty jwara ugaioab the wie of oortaln
xéylacament parti, 1 tha Jaw were te
Sropone soak o duty, the pueden upon &
swsonfaohorer would be extepalya, "While
+ @ mennfactusoy cen be folrly ubusyed
spith beating und weenloy of dengoro on;
soclated with camponsnty ¢ dowides to
ncorporata inio tia oem produot, vt
comma’ bo okerged with footing and
wdaratng agednst ery of & yoyrind oF
vonlnoemene ports supplied fy amy
sutembity of raicauftentaercra.
Gryhusta wided) Boghmen, 780 12d
wef L18B, rot
Che. plaints bo Metofol® wsouebsd that
Shey, Olbatbon, tine mmuenfooturey of aa eleo-
tofoally-pomeved 1ié mantor, violated a duby
4 give iuatractions voneeraing the aafé and
eats viggiog tn nae ‘with nontiohding,
ier Oiimiber wold pr Jewoed Ute motores to
tha plaintive employer, wong with other
sostidlfing euipmant. ihe svulfdiding
equipment, whidh wou pbinohed tava budlds
ing ob thu ine of this nooldiml, loot power
while tha plaintizi’s dodeilont attempted to
move to another floor of fhe baiiding, The
Geoatent nitemptel to concent whet ey
peace to by w loose opsauttion bobwveen
foe min power corde Jeading, to fio tera
motors, ‘The problem, however, was fu ths
igeing instant of Bio power oorde, Apex
ently, the vigaind had eiralued tha peyrar-
supply Tins end ous the Inet of wiKa,
"he live wixe uame into contact wth, en!
‘pagroamied meta] Janotipnebox. “The fave
ont fomobed the box dnd oubjeched himbele
to 200 volts of cleutrluity,
ley Olimbar provided no pest of the wen
‘Zol3iner equipment other then the electricel~
‘Tyspowered HEt motors, wor Ge Eley Clearer

Tex 227 .

mm
Getlga or pestinble ths woxtfoldhig. The
court fomal that ths menafaobarer had po
duly fo seb dorth ix entered? manuala
syaralng of posslble risk enamtad aololy by
‘he uot of another, , The amarh stated fast,
valle o tuamudaulaieee Hope hove e aly th
provide warnloga vegerding thie dangers oF ,
fs owa produub, "[wle have uaver held e
‘mingfantwar latte, however, tor Zaflace to
‘enon of riche neertedl optoly fu tie use or
cadatte of the product of another menace
faron!” etolall, 487 Ned ab 3876.
‘ho nylon alzap user to Tift the lon of
‘sin fnyolyad in this iueldent wos nub 2 com
‘ponent pact of fhe crane nor wos the nylon
trap incorporated julo the cxawe by oppsl-
Joo whan i mam¥actored the oano, To
yeguice the mennfaukucer to warn of oll
Hggingy dangers would bu wnfeie wid tne
weolleHo—p fadk recognized In Bovglemeon.
and MféohelL .
Jak Whethor w duty exdats fs @ question
OE lav tu Tre deolded by the cbuxt, Has Otis
Engg Cbrgs v Charl, O6E B.W.24 DUT, B08
(tee lOB3) (aagligente cus2); Hamilton »
ator Coval Indus, dr, 650 BW.2 B72,
B18 Can ivApplexezkony 1978, oo

writ) (eixint. tort Mobility cose); Grae,

Blriot Licbiltty Under Seottone $084, erat .
9aHe A, Debus of Létiowiton, 68 TILL. = *
‘BOY. 2188, 1200 (876),
Our Supreme Conrt stated In Gibb vm
Genaral Mvtore Corgy 4a0 B.YPAE. 027, BAB
@aciT), vegeetiog emmatxy judgment
peood thn aot
‘fhe question +», is mab whether the sum
mary judgmerb prov? zaioes foot debwes
with xeferenca fo the unsontist elements, .
UE a Platatti’s elim or onmna of action,
“bat in wheter the eummery judgmont
proof establishes nn a miter off tow
that tora te ne genuine fasne oF fecd oo
ty one o¥ wore of the exseotipl cleanents
1, OF the aby epee of option, 4,”
2 the, ameelgs’y cangniagh dapmend bvie,
dened jr tia aa aioe |
Sollondng wegexds eippelluh dfarhot mom; * *
fookus, detelbhts, sell, ov ofisrwise plaoa
Fhe nylon cbapp or apy other rlgning; mute
inl Sato the strenm of commoroe} appellee :
fo nob in the business of monnganturiog ox
galling auy rigging metarlely end rhyfsiog fe

ao,
228 Tem
ew oommples: ect that zauives different Iowita
to be rigged ine muilfitaia of differant
‘wo, ‘Wa hold thut, vile: the face of
‘this cage, eppeline bod uo datz to warm or
Anntanal waste of ita crane about kgging it
Wid hob manefachne, Inomporata into fis
evans, or place into the ofeam, of wun
moved, Sines p duty to warn is an exsvatial
elemuat of the Walton's elelm, flu abooncs
olm duty compels a suenmary judgment for
uypellas baved upon ta “no-tinty” geome,
Cantontion

Appellant contenta Piet = meterhil fase
oF fork seiebs os tu yhethen Bae ploged
esl defect ia the plevement of to von
‘tres Zor tha wvinele aud boom sxtenier on
thp crane fn Fact orusnd the rocliant under
elfier w nagliggenus to utelob ability aac
of ection, Appollen contania finat th was
sotidled to judgment ny n matter of law
Pocause the mimawy judgment oridenca
ooodiasiyely shown thet the alleged defeat
fn the placsmant of the wine ond oom
‘extender conta on fhe orana was nok the
ome fo Zack off oppallant Maric ‘Wallon’

fom,

[8] Gur Bmpeerne Gnyech fn Vcore w, Jif,
Properly Munogemen’ Oo, 800 Bi Wet
B46, GAB-A0 (Zer,JB0H), sot out in the tsa
Gord Yor xeviowing & emmy jndgmenk:

J. he movant for mammary jadgmont

hau tha burden of showing thet there fs

ne genuine Joma vf matardsl Zact end

thn
* 2, Yo deciding whuther there ts ¢ dio
poled mbtarial feot ison provludlag muri
jgraimt, uvidewe favorable to
‘the’ nunsamvanb will be falron ea fue,
* 8, Byory xeasonsbls fiferenoe smmat bo
Iufelged in Savor of tha nonqnoyent und
way Goubts xosulved in fts favor, =,”
Bummexy judgment for a dufenient Is
proper ‘when 2b leost one clameut of o
Plaintiff's cause of netion hua been estab
chad conclusively against the plaintiff
‘Glove ». Tarvin, BOB S724 B17, 639 (Vex.
Ty.Aps-—Delias 1680, no writ} avo Otis
Eng'g Cor, 008 BBd eb BLL, An at
Sonule tort, whother based on nagligence
ov vhriob Hebilly, Includes the oleent of

‘that ibin entifled to Jodyment as a rantier «

708 HOULH WORTERN RHPORIEHE, 21 SURUIS

vausation o annua ia fact, Soe Gideon t.
doline-atenutite Silos Core, 162 i201
2229, 1188 (Sth. Oh,18B6), Prosar end Eeo-
‘ton on Works, Gf 4d (6th wd, 1984). Whero
fore, & defondent is entitled to Bommery
judgment 3 eave in Zack is megated by the
summery jndgment evidonee.

[AL Appeles's iamntoury Judgment evi-
donne cuntisted primerily of fe deposition
ofl dedendont Rocky Bowell, who wes wppel-
Jont Marke Weltoa’s exaployer wnil vio wns
‘the operator of the urans ut the time nf the
fuoldant in question, Ayndilee oxntands
thot Bowell’ fastimony Bal, at the time of
tho neolient, the arauo opetated jroperly,
thnbhe lod no problems Sling poy vf the
Jeyarg, thet the orane was nob melzmetion
ing, thab ne was not oontossd xezecdlng
swith levers sontrol the winch and thy
oom extaniar, that the boowd wan mob exe

“tanded. nox halng rained or lowered, and

‘tht only the which waa Witing the lond of
th entabishoa ue a motlan of fuvr tab the
orare dd not contributa to or cause the
ooclduat fu sguusfiom,

Appullanty aque that Powells testimony
dannvt esteblish lacle of oquection beowins
‘he ia an interested witnoas aud hiv teotitay-
ny unnblite of Jay opinions wail oondlueloos.
Appslants farther argue thet Powell's tam
‘Hioemy wou rebuttal by eppeliants! sume
xy jndgment evidence, zomaly that o? thelr
export vitnuse, Norm Suelalls, winaw aiii+
Gait atabes:

‘The product in question memnaobuced by:
[anpetteg) In Veh off fb funution xequicess
dpenial design ttontion, This ‘product
resents risks and havards ty opernton
ond bystanders wud riggers. Ti ia my
ophaton hosed on all of the ebove timk Mes
orarte tn uortion wns antl is wreronserte
nly damyortus when wast tm cvnfine,
Hon wit tha typ of aglow. strap tha’
failed on the day in question ond gro-
diecad Yon anvident in question,

(Wmphasis dided,) a)

Wo disugvan with appellant's arguments,
Byun it Powel) sonld be deemed en-interentr,
eft witness, his testimpuy meets, the xe
quiccmants of the excention nniler TOKE,
OLV.P, 28fin{c); which aMowa en.interested
oy witnené to support 2 vomniacy judg-MOULENDOMW 9, SCALE WAR
Olncat9a UMM zap eign EIEaan 10D)

a "2085, walt actlaige)s ALS
ooirio Onréractorg, Ano, Hivolor, B22

02
ee Di, fenae Goraan ty arias nD

Powells testimony. Haukull’s testimony
melee no referees te Powell's footual
etatements foe ‘boom satenior
end the Winch controls, Suolnil’s tevtino-
By dose not state that the Boom extender
‘be the Winch controle were defeotive sai
fad auch defeob waa the produckn came
of the aneldant, but mofely asaouts thot she
crave ‘Wes unkewsonably dengeroua when
ued In tandem with & wylon chap that
Anllefl ond Yat prodnced ha eealédhi, Bhis
dows nob eontroyart Powell's direct tuutimo-

wy, ‘Thorefore, Powell's deposition tastimo-
wy mests the atapdordy pf sumianry, ode
Seat Saat abe

i i
lo $801, no writ),

On the shove Feagona, ‘we ovariule ep-

pollunts! sole point of ercon

‘The judgment of the tie} couch fo at
Soma.
,

Albect MeOLENDON, Appeliont,
%

(BEALE PARI DIOAG AUIDMOBILE

TNSURANOD COMBANY end Robert
Wh Hyath, HO, Bppelless, sy
No, 0B-82-00210-07, "

Court af Appasle of Texas,

PAGO, .
ue 4, dodo,» i

Roheadng Ovetraled Oct, 10, 2000.

Yueubed oved inspeer for unéair motile.
madui practivos anil branches of contrat

Tox 220

end Situnlary zalaliously end ioomxoe's abe
tomuoy Zor nepiigenos in prasescking: peor
‘subrogation pull in comnly aomb without
notes to inte, Whe Wbth Disit ©
Couyt, Havels Comsty, Don I Wettig,
granted defendants! motion Zor eummary
jndgment’ Eonesil Pane ‘Tho "Uburt:

af Appeuts, Koekley, J, beld thet; (1) jude
amonk in subcogution uttfoe property lam

age Jn county cout ot lew yWosnot tee
jadlogta to perzousl infory sufk fied by
Inuored in Ustriub comet involving same per

Flea antl fasrisa, oxucy aus fo tobal mmo

vf $ropeviy damages sued fox in acbroge-

fon sai, and (2) telat comt did mot obnoe

ity Useretion in veinbtating anit, whith yes
dlomleeed after nonexit, pon ayrooimout of
partion,

Aftinmad, ’ .

‘1 Appeal and Tixtor e-050,

‘When contionted with: sppenl from
enumimuxy Judgment, eppsliate nore wed
murily smut Sevlow xed te dotoonine
‘whethor Alsyutad muteclel feeb feoua exists
het would precide pmmnay judgment,

2, Judgment C=I85(0

As in al smmtonry casas, defendants
moving Zor summary jaigment heya te
don of ahowng es matter of Jexr thet lala
|3EE has np canan of ection nen fam,

5, Fadgment oied

Pinsuaat to stubute, rage ‘pub
ropation sult for property damage result *
fog from wulomoblle nodent fa oouniy
court at Jaw wee: niptzed jatlonta to persone
2 injury enlt Teter Sled by insured in ills
brlobjeowrl fuvelying: same punter math is-
‘se sr fe sinh ep eoperty. 7°

for jn, gubgogatign,

im th iv Hpapltos a es ee

Bera itt

4, alpen oe

‘Ron judlota ie prinolgle Zollowed by
cont that prohibits ‘farther libigation in
gubesquent enit of batne ise of fous or