The trial court did not err in marking, but not admitting, a contract which defendant’s witness used to refresh his recollection about typical provisions of earlier, but no longer available contracts between defendant and So. Cal. Gas Co. for the laying of asbestos lined gas pipe.  A document used to refresh a witness’s recollection need not be admissible in evidence.  Nor need it be produced in discovery or be included on a trial exhibit list.  It only has to be produced to the opposing party on demand once the witness gives testimony that was refreshed by looking at the document.  Furthermore, in this case, plaintiff benefited from the document, extensively cross-examining the defense witness about its contents.  In this asbestosis case against an independent contractor that laid gas pipelines for So. Cal. Gas, plaintiff’s employer, the trial court did not err in giving jury instructions about the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees.  The instruction correctly stated the import of Lab. Code 6400 and did not imply that defendant could not be held liable if it contributed to the injury.  Also, the trial court properly gave CACI expert standard of care instructions as the laying of gas pipelines is a highly specialized and skilled task in which the defendant had nearly a century of experience.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4 (Collins, J.); November 22, 2016; 2016 WL 6875924