Fortman v. Hemco, Inc.
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 557, 211 Cal. App. 3d 241, 259 Cal. Rptr. 311 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the stream of commerce approach to strict products liability, any entity that is an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise, including the manufacturer of an indispensable component mold, can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defect in the final product.
Facts:
- John Redford conceived an idea for an after-market fiberglass jeep top and consulted with Ronald Hill, president of Hemco, Inc., a company specializing in making fiberglass molds.
- The design incorporated rear-hinged, front-opening doors with nonrecessed 'hook' handles, a design Hill considered outstanding and to have market appeal.
- A wooden prototype was built, with Hill and Hemco assisting Redford in 'all aspects of the design' to ensure a mold could be made from it.
- Hemco was paid approximately $2,500 to create a fiberglass mold from the prototype, which included the defective door design, and also cast two complete jeep tops from the mold.
- Redford contracted with a different company, Rigid Forms, Inc., to mass-produce the jeep tops using the unaltered door mold created by Hemco.
- The Fortman family purchased a jeep equipped with one of the jeep tops made from the Hemco mold.
- Three-year-old Nichole Fortman, while riding in the jeep, inadvertently unlatched the passenger door, which the wind caught and blew open.
- Nichole's sleeve snagged on the door handle, and she was ejected from the vehicle and subsequently run over by another car, resulting in permanent and extensive injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Nichole Fortman filed a lawsuit in California superior court (trial court) against numerous defendants, including Hemco, Inc., alleging strict liability and negligence.
- Fortman settled with all defendants except Hemco and Austin Hardware & Supply, Inc. prior to trial.
- Fortman dismissed her negligence claim against Hemco, proceeding to trial solely on a theory of strict products liability.
- During the trial, Austin Hardware also settled, leaving Hemco as the only remaining defendant.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Fortman, finding Hemco 25% liable and awarding total damages of $23,742,620.
- The trial court denied Hemco's motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Hemco, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company that manufactures a mold used to produce a defectively designed product, but does not manufacture or sell the final product itself, constitute a participant in the 'overall producing and marketing enterprise' such that it can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by the defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Woods (A. M.), P. J.
Yes. A company that manufactures a component mold is a link in the chain of the overall producing and marketing enterprise and can be held strictly liable. The court reasoned that California law applies a broad 'stream of commerce' approach to strict liability, focusing on the defective product itself rather than the conduct of a particular defendant. The purpose is to ensure that costs of injuries are borne by all those who put the product on the market. Hemco's role was not 'random or accidental' but was indispensable to the creation of the final product; without the mold Hemco manufactured, the defective doors could not have been produced. It is a defendant's participatory connection with the injury-producing enterprise for its own profit, not its control over the final product or the defect, that triggers strict liability.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces and expands the 'stream of commerce' or 'enterprise' theory of strict liability in California. It clarifies that liability is not limited to those who design, manufacture, or sell the final product. The decision extends liability upstream to entities that provide essential components or tooling, such as a mold-maker, if their participation is a necessary step in the production process. This holding puts component part manufacturers on notice that they cannot insulate themselves from liability by arguing they merely followed a designer's specifications or had no control over the final product's marketing, thereby broadening the pool of potential defendants for plaintiffs injured by defective products.
Unlock the full brief for Fortman v. Hemco, Inc.