In this federal court case, the plaintiff appealed the district court’s granting of summary judgment to defendants ABB, Schneider Electric, and Eaton.
The court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case. In it’s ruling, the court noted: “In order to prevail in products liability cases, a plaintiff must establish, at minimum, (1) the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s product, and (2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury suffered.”(Citation omitted).
Regarding exposure, the court held: “Prior to his death, Curtis testified in his deposition that he could visually identify the Defendants’ products, and the asbestos in their electrical components by their color and swirl designs. Curtis testified that he would inhale asbestos released from Defendants’ electrical components when he repaired and sanded them. He further testified that he repaired Defendants’ products over the years ‘many, many times,’ ‘too many to count.'” The court went on to state “The district court further erred by not considering Curtis’s testimony that he inhaled dust after cleaning destroyed electrical parts that were encased in asbestos-containing material.”
Regarding causation, the court held: “Because the district court erred in finding that Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of asbestos exposure from Defendants’ products, it also erred to the extent it relied on this finding to conclude that asbestos exposure from Defendants’ products was not a substantial factor in causing Curtis’s mesothelioma. However, it is not clear from the record whether the district court decided causation in Defendants’ favor on a ground other than product identification, such as insufficient medical evidence linking Curtis’s exposure to asbestos to his mesothelioma. Therefore, we remand this action to the district court for further proceedings. We express no opinion on whether Defendants may move for summary judgment on other grounds of insufficient causation besides product identification.”