Category Archives: Single Fiber, Cumulative Exposure

Friction Defendants Granted Summary Judgment on the Issue of Causation Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, August 2, 2017

On August, 2, 2017, Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Julianne Capetola granted various defendants’ motion to renew and re-argue the court’s prior denial of the defendants’ combined Frye/summary judgment motions as to the issue of causation. Upon renewal, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. By way of background, plaintiffs Giulio Novello and Rosaria Novello brought suit in the Nassau County Supreme Court seeking damages for personal injuries against various automotive-related defendants. The plaintiffs contended that Novello’s lung cancer diagnosis was causally related…

Continue Reading....

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Betz Decision Rejecting Each and Every Exposure

In December of 2010, a Philadelphia jury awarded a verdict in the amount of $14.5 million to the widow, and executrix of the estate, of James Nelson. Nelson had previously developed mesothelioma and passed away at age 54 in 2009. The defendants appealed the verdict, arguing that the plaintiff failed to meet the sufficient standard of causation under Pennsylvania law. The defendants specifically argued that the trial court improperly allowed plaintiff’s expert to testify that each and every exposure must be considered a substantially contributing…

Continue Reading....

Kentucky Appellate Court Rejects “Any Exposure” Causation Theory U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, January 10, 2017

In September of 2012, William Stallings filed suit in Kentucky state court against Georgia Pacific and other manufacturers of the asbestos containing products he had been exposed to decades earlier, seeking punitive damages under theories of strict liability and negligence. Specifically, Stallings was diagnosed with mesothelioma allegedly caused by his four years of Naval Service, where he helped operate and maintain boilers aboard the USS Waller. After leaving the Navy, Stallings worked as a drywall finisher, where he alleged exposure from mixing and installing drywall.…

Continue Reading....

Court of Appeals of Ohio Finds Reversible Error in Refusal of Daubert Hearing On Basis of Opinions of Drs. Strauchen and Frank Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, May 5, 2016

In this case it is alleged that the decedent, Glenn Watkins, was exposed to chrysotile asbestos dust from the sanding of Bendix brakes while working as a manager at various Auto Shack and AutoZone retail stores between 1985 and 2006 and that this exposure was a substantial cause of his pleural mesothelioma and death. Prior to trial, all defendants other than Honeywell International Inc. settled or were dismissed. The issue at trial was whether Watkins’ handling of Bendix brakes was a cause-in-fact of his mesothelioma,…

Continue Reading....

Wife’s Testimony on Decedent’s Use of Brake Product and Expert Causation Testimony Held Sufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, October 2, 2015

In this federal court case, decedent Richard Bell alleged exposure to asbestos while performing car maintenance from 1964 through the late 1970s. Defendant Honeywell, as successor of Bendix, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the decedent’s wife’s deposition testimony that the decedent used Bendix brakes with the word “asbestos” on the packaging was hearsay; that the testimony could not be used against it to oppose summary judgment since it was taken prior to Honeywell becoming a party; and that the plaintiff failed to show the…

Continue Reading....

In Wisconsin: Single Fiber Theory on Causation Held Scientifically Unreliable; Longo Precluded; Castleman Opinion Partially Precluded U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, May 14, 2015

In two asbestos cases, Owens Illinois, Inc. sought to exclude an opinion by the plaintiffs’ experts that “any exposure to asbestos, no matter how slight, remote or insignificant, is a cause or substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs’ diseases.” The company also sought to exclude the testimony and testing of William Longo under FRE 702. The plaintiffs did not substantively oppose these motions and the court granted them without opposition. With respect to the plaintiffs’ “state of the art expert,”  Barry Castleman, Owens Illinois…

Continue Reading....

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Applies “Frequency, Regularity, Proximity” Standard, Dismissing Bystander Exposure Claim Superior Court of Pennsylvania, April 17, 2015

The plaintiff commenced this action, alleging bystander exposure to brake work done on a P&H crane brakes. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds there was insufficient evidence of asbestos exposure to any P&H crane brakes. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs relied on the following proof as recounted by the court: “Appellants contend that by P&H’s own admission, its cranes contained parts made with asbestos, including the brakes and wiring. Appellants assert Appellant Mr. Sterling’s job duties constantly put him in…

Continue Reading....