Bader v. Avon Products, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
55 Cal. App. 5th 186, 269 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 (2020)

- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
Patricia Schmitz, a life-long California resident, died from mesothelioma. Susan Jean Bader (plaintiff), the representative of Schmitz’s estate, sued Avon Products, Inc. (Avon) (defendant) for strict products liability, negligence, and fraud. Bader alleged that Schmitz used asbestos-contaminated Avon talcum powder products in California and that those products caused Schmitz’s mesothelioma. Evidence adduced before the trial court established that Schmitz first encountered Avon products in 1980, when an Avon representative left an Avon catalogue at the school where Schmitz worked. Schmitz used a variety of Avon talcum powders over the next 20 years. Schmitz always ordered the products directly from Avon representatives in California. At deposition, Avon’s corporate representative admitted that Avon sold its products through a direct-sales model, meaning Avon utilized representatives to sell products directly to consumers. Avon moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, Avon argued that Bader could not satisfy the relatedness prong of California’s three-prong, specific-jurisdiction test because she failed to establish that the Avon talcum powders Schmitz used contained asbestos and were therefore defective. The trial court granted Avon’s motion. Bader appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

