April 27, 2022

Hahn v. New York Air Brake —– Cal.App. 5th —- (A161199, April 25, 2022)

A transportation worker sued various defendants that he said exposed him to asbestos fibers causing mesothelioma. He did not sue an air brake manufacturer, even though a witness’s deposition testimony in any earlier lawsuit identified the manufacturer by name and suggested its potential involvement in plaintiff’s exposures. When the plaintiff died, his heirs sued for wrongful death, and the new complaint again did not name the air brake manufacturer, but listed “Does 1 through 800.” The heirs eventually added the air brake manufacturer as a Doe defendant after additional discovery. The trial court granted summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, finding the amendment did not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 474 and therefore did not relate back to the filing of the complaint.

The Court of Appeal reversed, relying on an 1886 decision to hold that section 474 applies whenever a plaintiff is in fact ignorant of the late-added defendant’s potential involvement, regardless of the means available to learn of facts supporting a potential claim. (See Irving v. Carpentier (1886) 70 Cal. 23, 26.) The Court of Appeal said, “the plaintiff is not barred from invoking section 474 merely because she suspected the person of wrongdoing based on an incomplete set of facts.” Plaintiffs had information that the defendant made brake products used at the decedent’s workplace, and they pleaded that brake dust was the source of asbestos exposure. The Court of Appeal nonetheless held that the plaintiff’s failure to name the defendant was excusable unless the defendant met their burden of proving “plaintiffs actually knew, when they filed their original complaint, facts indicating Air Brake’s braking system used or required any asbestos-containing part.”

The Court of Appeal’s opinion appears to be at odds with at least some more recent cases. (E.g., Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 180[“A requirement of reviewing readily available information is not a significant burden, is not inconsistent with the cases that impose no duty of inquiry on plaintiffs who never knew the defendant’s identity, and assures the good faith of plaintiffs who seek to use the section 474 relation-back doctrine.” ]; but see Balon v. Drost (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 483 [majority held plaintiff who forgot late-added defendant’s identity—after previously knowing it and failing to take advantage of available means to refresh recollection—could rely on section 474 to evade statute of limitations; dissent addressed contrary authority holding section 474 does not apply to plaintiff whose ignorance is “such as might be removed by some inquiry or resort to information easily accessible,” and, “While we recognize the Supreme Court's liberal attitude toward allowing amendments of pleadings to avoid the harsh result imposed by a statute of limitations, that attitude is not unfettered by reasonable requirements. Some discipline in pleading is still essential to the efficient processing of litigation.”].)