## Facts

- Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured “Kaylo,” an industrial high-temperature insulation product containing approximately 13–20% asbestos, from 1948 to 1958, then sold the Kaylo operation.
- Charles Wayne Sparks served in the U.S. Navy and worked around Kaylo on Navy ships, including during decommissioning work, where use of the insulation released asbestos dust.
- Sparks later developed malignant mesothelioma; he and his wife sued, alleging Kaylo was defectively designed and inadequately warned, and that exposure to Kaylo was a substantial factor in causing his disease.
- Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that Sparks’s Kaylo exposure was sufficient, by itself, to cause mesothelioma and that Kaylo was unreasonably dangerous as marketed.
- The trial court instructed on design defect under the consumer-expectations test.
- The jury found Kaylo defective, found the defect the sole legal cause of Sparks’s injuries, allocated 100% fault to Owens-Illinois, and awarded personal injury and loss-of-consortium damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may prove design defect under the consumer-expectations test without proving a feasible safer alternative design.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of legal causation and allocation of 100% comparative fault to Owens-Illinois despite potential exposure to other asbestos products.
3. Whether Owens-Illinois preserved a claim to allocate a share of non-economic damages to Sparks’s employer (the U.S. Navy) under Proposition 51.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full.
- Substantial evidence supported design defect under the consumer-expectations test, and plaintiffs were not required to prove a feasible alternative, non-asbestos design.
- Substantial evidence supported the jury’s causation finding and the 100% allocation of fault to Owens-Illinois.
- Owens-Illinois forfeited any Proposition 51 request to allocate non-economic damages to the Navy by failing to preserve the issue through timely instructions and verdict-form requests.

## Legal Principles

- Under the consumer-expectations test for design defect, liability may be established by showing the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner; proof of a feasible alternative design is not required in every case.
- In reviewing a civil verdict for sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court applies the substantial-evidence standard and does not reweigh conflicting evidence.
- Comparative fault allocation is generally a factual determination for the jury and will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.
- Proposition 51 limits a defendant’s liability for non-economic damages to its proportionate share of fault, but a defendant must timely request appropriate jury instructions and verdict findings to preserve allocation to nonparties, including employers.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict finding asbestos-containing insulation defective under the consumer-expectations test and affirmed a 100% fault allocation to the manufacturer based on substantial expert evidence of causation, while rejecting any reduction of non-economic damages because the manufacturer failed to preserve employer-allocation issues at trial.


Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 32 Cal. App. 4th 461, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 739 (Ct. App. 1995)