Rejecting a novel legal theory, a California jury found for defendants Exxon and Ford in a suit brought by a woman who claimed she contracted mesothelioma during visits to her then-boyfriend while he worked at a service station.
The manufacturers of respirators may be liable for failing to warn a shipyard worker of the risk of exposure to asbestos dust while cleaning the devices, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled.
A Delaware jury has awarded $2.86 million to the family of a factory worker who died from mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to talcum powder laced with asbestos fibers.
An Ohio family has won a $2.86 million jury award against a New York mining company which produced the asbestos which resulted in the death of Michael Galliher.
Despite never having worked directly with asbestos products, a general contractor diagnosed with mesothelioma has been awarded $48 million by a California jury.
The wife of an asbestos victim could proceed with a claim for loss of consortium, even though her husband’s exposure to the defendant’s product occurred years before the marriage, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
The wife of a man diagnosed with mesothelioma can maintain a claim for loss of consortium against an asbestos manufacturer – even if her husband’s exposure to the toxic product predated the marriage, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
A plaintiff’s expert in a product liability case could not testify that each and every fiber of inhaled asbestos is a substantial contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
Ford Motor Co. isn’t liable for injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos carried home on the clothes of independent contractors who worked at one of the auto maker’s plants, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a $40,000 jury verdict.
Evidence that a defendant has a negative net worth doesn’t preclude an award of punitive damages against it, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in upholding a $4.5 million punitive award.