The decedent in this case, Michael Walashek, alleged exposure to asbestos from various products, including Cleaver-Brooks boilers, during the course of his work for various entities between 1967 and 1986. The exposure allegedly caused him to “suffer severe and permanent injury and ultimately death.” The plaintiff, Gail Walashek, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and other entities alleging claims of negligence and strict liability in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, alleging that the plaintiff failed to establish “some threshold exposure” to its asbestos-containing boilers.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. In doing so, the District Court cited, inter alia, the the following: (1) testimony of a former superior of the decedent who recalled sending him to work on the defendant’s boilers somewhere in Eastern Washington “but could not recall” the specific job sites; (2) another witness’ testimony about working on boilers with the decedent at an Ore-Ida potato factory who testified that he would be “guessing” the boiler brand they worked on there; and (3) a third witness’ testimony about a “vague memory” of the defendant’s boilers being on Coast Guard ships he worked on along with Decedent. Based on the summarized evidence, as well as vague interrogatory responses on exposure, the District Court found that the defendant carried its initial burden of production. The District Court then noted that the plaintiffs failed to produce enough evidence to generate an issue of material fact, which the plaintiffs had largely based on the Coast Guard ship “vague memory” testimony. It was found that the ship testimony was “not of ‘sufficient quality to allow the trier of fact to find the underlying fact [of threshold exposure to asbestos attributable to the defendant] in favor’ of Plaintiffs.”