Sevilla v. Stearns-Roger, Inc.

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Victor Sevilla was injured while repairing a large “pan” used by his employer to boil syrup in the sugar refinement process. Within a year Sevilla sued the designer (Stearns-Roger) and manufacturer (General Iron Works) of the “pan,” alleging the apparatus was defective and unsafe for its intended use. The defendants moved for summary judgments, arguing solely the action was barred by Code

[610]

of Civil Procedure sections 337.1 and 337.15.

1

The court below granted the motions, entering judgments for the defendants, without stating any specific grounds for its action. Sevilla appeals.

Summary judgment is the appropriate disposition of an action which on its face is barred by a statute of limitations (see

Wells Fargo Bank

v.

Superior Court

(1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 890, 895 [141 Cal.Rptr. 836]). However, summary procedure is drastic and should be used with caution and not become a substitute for trial

(Howe

v.

Pioneer Mfg. Co.

(1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [68 Cal.Rptr. 617]). Here the limitations imposed by sections 337.1 and 337.15 were improperly applied by the trial court.

Personal injury actions based upon a products liability theory are governed by a one-year period of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. 3;

G. D. Searle & Co.

v.

Superior Court

(1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 25 [122 Cal.Rptr. 218]). For the purposes of the statute, an injured

[611]