Survivors whose parents died from complications associated with mesothelioma brought a wrongful death action against, among others, a manufacturer of asbestos-containing automobile brakes and the operator of a chain of automobile parts stores. They alleged that their father had been exposed to asbestos when he performed regular brake repairs on the family car, using the defendant manufacturer’s brakes, which he purchased from the defendant store chain. Issues included the propriety of the trial court’s jury instructions on the theories of strict and negligent product liability, premised on failure to warn and design defect/consumer expectation tests.
Survivors of a worker who died of mesothelioma sued the worker’s employer, a pipe manufacturer, for wrongful death, alleging that in addition to his workplace exposure to asbestos through pipes made by the employer, the worker was also permitted to take waste or scrap pipe home, where he was exposed to asbestos in using the pipe for home projects. The primary issue was whether the worker’s exposure to asbestos at home created a separate injury from the exposure at work, such that under Lab. Code, § 3602, workers compensation was not the survivors' exclusive remedy against the employer.
Plaintiff who developed mesothelioma sued numerous defendants, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for his exposure to asbestos during his 20 years of service in the United States Navy and his 16-year employment by a sugar manufacturer. Primary issue concerned the jury’s allocation of fault among defendants.
Husband and wife sued a general contractor, alleging the contractor exposed husband to asbestos when he worked at a power plant. Primary issue was whether the evidence demonstrated such exposure.
Hon. Thomas L. Willhite, Jr. (Ret.)
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90017