Plaintiff John Burton filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various defendants, including Ingersoll Rand, alleging he developed mesothelioma from occupational exposure to asbestos during his work at a New Jersey facility that manufactured aluminum cans. During his discovery deposition, Burton testified that the production of aluminum cans required a washing system to which the facility had two “washing machines” that incorporated washing and decorating the cans. Burton recalled these washing machines had 12 pumps and testified generally that Ingersoll …
Continue ReadingCategory: Summary Judgment
No Error in Recommendation of Summary Judgment Where Plaintiffs Failed to Establish Causation
Summary Judgment was recommended by the magistrate for the plaintiffs’ failure to establish causation in this case. The plaintiff appealed and contended that his asbestos related disease was a result of exposure to asbestos from Foster Wheeler boilers while working onboard the USS Gridley.
The court noted that the standard of review of a magistrate’s report and recommendation is de novo. In this case, no party objected to the application of maritime law. Accordingly, the plaintiff had the burden to show: 1) The plaintiff …
Continue ReadingDeath of Statutory Beneficiary During Pendency of Jones Act Claim Did Not Extinguish Jones Act Claims; Estate Could Recover Benefit
Defendant Thompson Hine filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s Jones Act survival claims abated due to no statutory beneficiary. The court denied the motion.
The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Joseph Braun, was exposed to asbestos during his work aboard ships owned by the defendants and died from an asbestos-related disease. This case was originally filed in 1989 and asserted claims under the Jones Act and general maritime common law. In April 2011, the case was transferred to MDL 875 as …
Continue ReadingDefendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Lack of Exposure Evidence and Opposition
The plaintiffs brought this action against multiple defendants alleging Mr. Evans developed an asbestos related disease as a result of his exposure to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans alleged that he worked as a fireman and boiler tender on-board the USS Kearsarge from 1957-61 and USS Bole in 1961. Mr. Evans believed that he had been exposed to asbestos from gaskets and refractory products while in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans also alleged that he had been exposed to brake dust …
Continue ReadingDefendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Establish Exposure Evidence
The plaintiff alleged he developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while working with the U.S. Navy from 1961-64 and from 1961-78 with various employers. Defendant Crane Co. removed the case to the U.S. District Court on August 31, 2015. Defendants CBS Corporation, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, FMC Corporation, and Ingersoll Rand moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed no opposition to those motions.
The court began its analysis with the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Denied to Manufacturer of Commercial Kitchen Equipment
Plaintiff Dario Battistoni worked as a butcher at a delicatessen in Queens, New York, from 1979 to 1980, and later worked as a butcher and banquet chef in kitchens at the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles, California from 1980 to 1999. The plaintiff claims that at those jobs he worked with commercial kitchen equipment, including products made by defendant ITW Food Equipment Group LLC that exposed him asbestos and caused his mesothelioma. ITW moved for summary judgment, contending that its products could not have …
Continue Reading“Frequency, Regularity and Proximity” Standard in New Jersey Law Acknowledged in Denying Two of Four Summary Judgments
The plaintiff was a machinist, pipe fitter and electrician from the 1950s-1970s and alleged asbestos exposure during his work at a variety of locations, including during home repair and automotive maintenance. In 2013, he was diagnosed with asbestosis. The plaintiff testified as to working with pumps as a machinist helper on the USS Kitty Hawk while working for the New York Shipyard. He also testified as to asbestos exposure while working as a sheet metal worker for the Pennsylvania Railroad.
Defendants Buffalo Pumps, DAP, Sid …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment for Brake Manufacturer Reversed as Circumstantial Evidence of Exposure Sufficient to Show Triable Issue of Fact
The plaintiffs, wife and sons of Henry Linsowe, filed a complaint in 2011 alleging causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Linsowe worked as a brake mechanic at Downey Ford from 1969 to 1986 and that he was exposed to asbestos “during various activities, including handling, beveling, removing, cutting, scoring, grinding, shaping, drilling, and installing of asbestos-containing brake pads and shoes, and the use of compressed air to clean and remove asbestos dust from …
Continue ReadingNo Duty To Warn Third Parties for Take-Home Exposures in Georgia
On November 30, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling, that affirmed in part and reversed in part, a Georgia Court of Appeals decision, which was previously reported on in the ACT.
For a brief background, the plaintiff, Marcella Fletcher originally filed suit against CertainTeed after being diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Fletcher attributed this diagnosis to years of laundering her father’s asbestos dust covered work clothing to which she alleges CertainTeed manufactured the asbestos-laden water pipes that her father had worked with. In …
Continue ReadingSame Facts = Same Ruling? Nope! Baltimore Issues Grant and Denial of Summary Judgment In Two Groups of Smoking Lung Cancer Cases
Two opposing decisions were rendered by two different judges in two factually and legally similar groups of smoking lung cancer cases. In Harrell et al. and Boston et al., asbestos defendants filed nearly identical motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not recover because (1) the plaintiffs knew the hazards of smoking and assumed the risk, and (2) were contributorily negligent. Summary judgment was granted in one group (Harrell et al.) and denied in the other (Boston et al…
Continue Reading