Expert Testimony Insufficient to Create Issue of Fact in Take Home Exposure Case U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit August 28, 2019

The Ninth Circuit affirmed an Idaho district court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendant, Union Pacific, in a secondary exposure case filed by the plaintiff William Stephens. The plaintiff alleged that his father was exposed to asbestos at his job at a Union Pacific roundhouse in Weiser, Idaho, and carried asbestos home on his clothes, exposing his family and contributing to the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. The plaintiff had also worked for 20 years in lumber mills in Oregon, and brought suit against his former employers…
Continue reading...

Possibility of Exposure to Asbestos in Cosmetic Talc Not Sufficient to Survive Summary Judgment Courts of Appeals of Wisconsin, August 27, 2019

WISCONSIN – The plaintiff, Dale Chapp, filed suit against Colgate Palmolive arguing that his late wife, Ruth Chapp, developed mesothelioma from her use of Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder from approximately 1969-the mid-1980s. The plaintiff also alleged that Ruth Chapp was secondarily exposed to asbestos from laundering his work clothes. Colgate moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that Chapp had “not shown more than the mere possibility of causation” and granted summary judgment in factor of Colgate. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court…
Continue reading...

Expansion of Employer Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Duty Reaches Nine States Supreme Court of Virginia, February 21, 2019

VIRGINIA — The State of Virginia recently expanded the potential duty to warn owed for take-home asbestos exposures in the Quisenberry case. The plaintiff Wesley Quisenberry filed suit on behalf of his decedent mother, alleging that her exposure to asbestos while laundering her father’s clothes caused her mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s decedent’s father worked at a shipyard for 35 years, and the plaintiffs allege that asbestos dust adhered to his clothing, contaminated his car, and came home with him. The defendant removed the case to federal…
Continue reading...

Maryland Appellate Court Upholds Motion for Judgment on Basis that Manufacturer Had no Duty to Warn of Take-Home Exposure Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, November 2, 2018

MARYLAND – Concetta Schatz’s (Mrs. Schatz) children (Appellants) commenced a lawsuit against John Crane, Inc. (JCI), alleging that Mrs. Schatz’s husband handled asbestos-containing JCI products while at work and wore his asbestos-covered clothing home for Mrs. Schatz to launder, thereby exposing her to asbestos, resulting in her mesothelioma diagnosis and eventual death. At the close of Appellants’ case-in-chief, JCI moved for judgment on the basis that Appellants failed to prove JCI owed a legal duty to warn Mrs. Schatz.  The lower Circuit Court granted JCI’s…
Continue reading...

Lack of Exposure Evidence Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment for Railroad Defendant U.S. District Courtm D. Idaho, October 1, 2018

IDAHO — The plaintiffs filed suit against Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific) alleging that Rollie Stephens had brought asbestos home on his work clothes which caused his son, William, to develop mesothelioma. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that Rollie Stephens was exposed to asbestos from his work at the Weiser roundhouse working on steam locomotives that contained insulation. Union Pacific moved for judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to affirmative defenses. The court began its analysis with the standard…
Continue reading...

Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration of Granting of Summary Judgment Denied in Railroad Take-Home Exposure Case U.S. District Court. W.D. Washington, September 30, 2018

WASHINGTON — In an update to a case previously reported by Asbestos Case Tracker, The plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting summary judgment for Union Pacific Railroad has been denied. By way of background, the plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Jack was secondarily exposed to asbestos from the work clothes of his father who worked at Union Pacific Railroad. The plaintiffs argued that the court failed to properly review 1) information provided by the plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Barry Castleman; and 2) the court…
Continue reading...

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Talc Case Granted Based Upon Lack of Causation Evidence U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of Georgia, September 28, 2018

GEORGIA — The plaintiff, Sharon Hanson, used Colgate Palmolive’s Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder product for 12 years, from 1961 to 1973. She was later diagnosed with both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, and passed in April 2018. On September 15, 2017, Colgate moved for summary judgment and also later filed Daubert motions to preclude plaintiff’s four causation experts. On September 24, 2018, the court entered an order excluding the opinions of each of those experts. Colgate’s motion for summary judgment argued that 1) the plaintiff had…
Continue reading...

Multiple Motions for Summary Judgment and Affirmative Defenses of Railroad and Auto Parts Manufacturers Denied in Part and Granted in Part United States District Court, W.D. Washington. September 17, 2018

The plaintiff Patrick Jack filed suit against several defendants alleging he contracted mesothelioma from take-home, bystander and direct exposure to asbestos for which the defendants were liable. The plaintiff’s take-home and bystander exposure was alleged from his father’s work at Union Pacific. He also claimed exposure while serving as a machinist in the Naval Reserve and Navy from 1955-1962 and while working as a machinist at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Also, The plaintiff contended that he was exposed to asbestos while working as a…
Continue reading...

Delaware Take-Home Summary Judgment Reversed for Paper Manufacturers Supreme Court of Delaware, June 27, 2018

DELAWARE — Decedent Dorothy Ramsey’s husband Robert Ramsey worked as a maintenance worker at Haveg Industries, Inc. from 1967 to 1992, and allegedly handled asbestos products manufactured by defendants Herty and Hollingsworth and Vose (together, the manufacturers) on a regular basis. The plaintiff alleged that Mrs. Ramsey developed her fatal lung cancer from regularly laundering Mr. Ramsey’s clothes which were contaminated with asbestos dust emanating from his use of the manufacturers’ products, among others. The trial court had granted the manufacturers’ summary judgment motions, finding…
Continue reading...

Compressor Manufacturer’s Appeal Denied Based on Finding of Substantial Contribution to Decedent’s Disease Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, August 2, 2017

Myra Williams died on August 8, 2013 of complications from malignant mesothelioma. Plaintiff Jimmy Smith, along with his four children, filed suit against several defendants alleging that their products cause Myra’s mesothelioma. Smith alleged that he was exposed to asbestos fibers while working at the Placid Oil Facility in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Smith unknowingly brought fibers and dust home on his clothing after each day of work. Myra would handle and wash Jimmy’s clothing, and sustained what is commonly referred to as bystander asbestos exposure. Ingersoll–Rand…
Continue reading...