context: The useful product cases have no applicability where, as here, the sale of a useful product necessarily and immediately results in the leakage of hazardous substances. In that circumstance, the leaked portions of the hazardous substances are never used for their intended purpose.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 872 F.2d 1381, 1381
citation_a.parenthetical: rejecting application of the useful product doctrine where "waste is generated and disposed of contemporaneously with the process" (emphasis added
citation_a.sentence: See Zands v. Nelson, 779 F.Supp. 1254, 1262 (S.D.Cal.1991) (stating that “gasoline is no longer a useful product after it leaks into, and contaminates, the soil”); see also Aceto, 872 F.2d at 1381 (rejecting application of the useful product doctrine where “waste is generated and disposed of contemporaneously with the process” (emphasis added)).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 779 F.Supp. 1254, 1262
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "gasoline is no longer a useful product after it leaks into, and contaminates, the soil"
citation_b.sentence: See Zands v. Nelson, 779 F.Supp. 1254, 1262 (S.D.Cal.1991) (stating that “gasoline is no longer a useful product after it leaks into, and contaminates, the soil”); see also Aceto, 872 F.2d at 1381 (rejecting application of the useful product doctrine where “waste is generated and disposed of contemporaneously with the process” (emphasis added)).