In this federal court case, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent was exposed to asbestos while working as a civilian flight mechanic at the Belle Chasse Air Force Base from the early 1950s through 1979. The Boeing Company removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case since defendants do not meet the removal requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1442 (a)(1). In the …
Continue ReadingAuthor: Jason A. Botticelli
Railroad Companies Awarded Dismissals for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Properly Plead Successor-In-Interest Liability
In these actions, plaintiffs Dennis Franco and James Nelson claimed exposure to asbestos while working, respectively, as a track repairman for the Reading Company and as a machinist for Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). Defendants CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway are successor-in-interest to Reading and Conrail and moved to dismiss several of the plaintiffs’ claims, including common-law negligence and premises liability, arguing that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) provides the exclusive remedy to railroad carrier employees who suffer work-related injuries resulting from the employer’s …
Continue ReadingCourt Analyzes Damages Under FELA
In this case, a railroad worker who was diagnosed with lung cancer filed suit under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) alleging the railroad had exposed him to asbestos as well as other hazardous materials. The jury awarded $8.6 million, finding the railroad negligent and negligent per se, but it also found the decedent was 62 percent at fault due to his smoking history. Following the return of the verdict, the trial court instructed the jury that because of its finding that the railroad had …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Expert Industrial Hygienist Found to Be Qualified to Offer Testimony on Non-Specific Levels of Asbestos Exposure
In this federal court case, the decedent, Sally Gros Vedros, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from laundering her father’s work clothes during the time he worked as a welder at the Avondale shipyard from 1943 to 1976 and from her own work at Avondale in the purchasing department from 1960 to 1963. The defendant, Bayer CropScience, Inc., which was the successor to several companies that formerly were known as Amchem Company, moved to preclude plaintiff’s industrial hygienist, Frank Parker, III, from testifying, …
Continue ReadingCourt Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to Reflect Only Remaining Parties
In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1957 to 1960 aboard the USS Jonas Ingram and the USS Clarence Bronson, as well as from “other sites of asbestos exposure from approximately 1956 to 1970.” In November 2013, eight defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff only opposed the motions by Ford Motor Company and Honeywell International, Inc. Following the granting of summary judgment to all of the defendants with unopposed motions, the plaintiff moved …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Expert Opinion and Grants Railroad Summary Judgment Under FELA on Lack of Causation
In this California case, the decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working for a railroad as a switchman, conductor, and brakeman, later developing mesothelioma. Specifically, the decedent claimed exposure was from changing railcar brake shoes, being in the vicinity of insulation removal from refrigerator cars, and staying in a boarding house run by the railroad that had insulation-covered pipes in the room where he slept. The defendant railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing “that plaintiffs were required but failed to prove negligence under FELA, …
Continue ReadingGeneral Electric Granted Summary Judgment on the Bare Metal Defense Under Maritime Law
The plaintiff commenced this action by claiming he was exposed to insulation on General Electric products while in the U.S. Navy. GE moved for summary judgment on three grounds: the government contractor defense, the bare metal defense under maritime law, and on no evidence of GE actually furnishing the component parts. The court ruled that maritime law — rather than New Jersey law — governed the case.
The court only addressed the bare metal defense, ruling that GE was entitled to summary judgment: “The Court …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Two Cases Where Equipment Was Used in Connection With Asbestos Brake Linings
In the first California case, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014. He had previously worked as an auto mechanic in New York City and Los Angeles, during which he purchased an AMMCO machine equipped with a dust collection system. This machine was “an ‘arcing’ machine designed to grind drum brake linings for cars and light passenger trucks with standard sized brake shoes. From the early 1950’s to the 1980’s, the great majority of such drum brake linings contained asbestos. Because the AMMCO machines …
Continue ReadingValve Manufacturer’s Appeal on Summary Judgment Denied on Foreseeable Use of Asbestos-Containing Component Parts
In this case, it is alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos gaskets and packing in valves manufactured by Crane Co., while working at an industrial plant from 1956 to 1982. Crane appealed from the lower court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment and the Fourth Department affirmed the decision.
In its appeal, Crane alleged that it could not be liable for failure to warn of the dangers associated with asbestos, since it did not produce or sell the asbestos-containing component parts. The …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Exercises Supplemental Jurisdiction in Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Remand
In this federal court case, the plaintiffs sought to remand the case back to state court after settling with federal defendants GE and CBS Corporation, who originally removed the case pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C 1442(a)(1). The plaintiffs sought removal, asking the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against John Crane. The plaintiffs also reasserted their challenges to the court’s original jurisdiction, but since those issues had already been addressed, only the new argument was …
Continue Reading