Compensation Does Not End Question of Blame, Court Rules

The fact that workers were compensated for a plant explosion does not automatically end the question of who was responsible, a state appellate court ruled Tuesday.

The 4th District Court of Appeal decision, which heightens divisions among California courts, involves a 1979 explosion and fire at the Narmco Materials Inc. plant in Costa Mesa.

One worker died and another was severely burned as they were mixing a high-technology epoxy substance that is used in the aircraft industry.

Tulco Inc. of Boston and Ciba-Geigy Corp. provided Narmco with components for the epoxy. Although Tulco made a relatively large contribution to the settlement, the company claimed that it was not at fault, Tulco attorney William W. Read said. Rather, Tulco claimed that Ciba-Geigy is responsible for the explosion because it failed to issue warnings about the hazards of its product.

That claim was thrown out of court last year. The appeals court revived the case Tuesday.

“This is one way to assure that the party truly at fault is the one who really pays for it,” Read said.

Proposition 51 Cited

In the majority opinion, Justice Thomas F. Crosby Jr. cited voter approval last year of Proposition 51, which ended the doctrine of joint and several liability, which, in many cases, resulted in defendants’ being held financially responsible for injuries far beyond the proportion of their actual fault.

“Fair compensation to injured parties is obviously of paramount concern,” Crosby wrote. But only “slightly less important,” he wrote is equitable payment by parties responsible.

Joining in the arguments against Tulco were attorneys for the injured worker, Larry Cercone, and the heirs of George Seaman, who died after the Aug. 22, 1979, industrial accident. Tulco provided $300,000 to settle their claim, and Narmco and Ciba-Geigy each contributed $20,000, Read said.