Court: California Superior Court, Los Angeles County
In this asbestos action, plaintiffs Leon Solis Jr., Laura Rangel, Crystal Solis and Leon Solis filed suit claiming negligence against several defendants, including Brake Parts Inc., in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiffs alleged Sylvia Solis contracted mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, resulting in Ms. Solis’s death.
The case went to jury trial Oct. 4 against Brake Parts as the only remaining defendant. Plaintiffs claimed Brake Parts allegedly created brakes by attaching asbestos linings to metal shoes. At trial, the plaintiffs presented several experts in support of their claims, including Dr. David Rosner (state of the art expert), Dr. Candace Tsai (industrial hygienist), Dr. Arthur Frank, M.D., Ph.D. (an expert in medical causation and occupational medicine), Dr. Brent Staggs, Ph.D., M.D. (a pathologist), and Marty Kanarek, Ph.D., M.P.H. (epidemiologist and public health expert).
Brake Parts, meanwhile, relied on expert testimony from Dr. Richard Attanoos (pathologist), James Crapo (pulmonologist), Jennifer Sahmel, CIH, MPH, CSP (a certified industrial hygienist), and Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar, M.D., Ph.D. (a mathematician and epidemiologist).
Plaintiff moved for a mistrial after Dr. Attanoos testified. Plaintiffs argued Dr. Attanoos gave “speculative opinions” about a possible natural cause of Sylvia Solis’ disease that “irreparably prejudiced” the case. Plaintiffs further argued that Dr. Attanoos’ testimony was not based on a reasonable degree of medical probability and should not have been given. Having heard that genetics caused Sylvia Solis’ disease — despite Dr. Attanoos’ own admission that there is insufficient evidence of that — the information cannot be erased from the jury’s mind, plaintiffs argued.
In opposition, Brake Parts argued that Dr. Attanoos’ testimony was based on sufficient evidence. Among other things, Dr. Attanoos testified that internal factors, including genetics, could have caused Sylvia Solis’ disease and that inherited factors are always something to consider in cancer cases. As such, Dr. Attanoos’ testimony was proper because it explained to the jury what is meant by internal factors and contrasted that to external factors, including those that can cause mesothelioma including asbestos, erionite and radiation.
The jury on Oct. 28 returned a defense verdict for Brake Parts, finding it manufactured, distributed and/or sold asbestos-containing brakes. However, the jury found that asbestos-containing brakes are a product that an ordinary consumer can form reasonable minimum safety expectations about. The jury also found that the asbestos-containing brakes did not fail to perform as an ordinary user would expect. The jury then found that the benefits of the asbestos-containing brakes design outweighed the risks.
The jury found that the brakes contained potential risks that were known or knowable and that those risks constituted a substantial danger. But the jury also found that an ordinary consumer would have recognized the risks. Notwithstanding, the jury found that Brake Parts was not negligent. In that regard, the jury found that Brake Parts knew or should have known the brakes were dangerous. Yet Brake Parts did not know or could not reasonably have known that users would not realize that danger. In addition, the jury found that Brake Parts did not intentionally fail to disclose any facts to Plaintiffs. Consequently, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Brake Parts.
Read the full decision here.