Component Parts Doctrine.

In the underlying action, plaintiffs, husband and wife, asserted claims against defendants for injuries to husband allegedly resulting from his decades-long work as a mold maker and machine operator at a foundry. While employed, the husband worked with and around metals, plaster and minerals supplied by defendants. Plaintiffs’ complaint for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, and loss of consortium was dismissed after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that they failed under the component parts doctrine, as applied in Maxton v. Western States Metals (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 81, [136 Cal.Rptr.3d 630]. In Maxton, the appellate court found that some of the plaintiff’s claims failed solely because his employer, who had bought many types of metal over a lengthy period, was necessarily a sophisticated purchaser, and defendants in the instant matter argued that because the FAC alleges that the husband’s employer had operated a foundry for a lengthy period, it must be regarded, as a matter of law, as a sophisticated purchaser. The appellate court reversed, stating: “With the exception of [plaintiffs’] claim for negligence per se, we conclude that the complaint states viable claims, and we respectfully disagree with the holding in Maxton. As we explain, the component parts doctrine does not shield a product supplier from liability when a party alleges that he suffered direct injury from using the supplier’s product as the supplier specifically intended. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions to the trial court to enter a new order overruling [defendants’] demurrers to [plaintiffs’] claims, with the exception of the claim for negligence per se.” (Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; March 21, 2014)224 Cal.App.4th 1239, [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 513].)