Source: http://hassard.com/RMH.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:14:28+00:00

Document:
Robert M. Hamblett has over 25 years experience trying toxic tort, products liability and premises liability cases, representing manufacturers, distributors, contractors and premises owners. He has served as regional counsel in the asbestos litigation, managing thousands of asbestos cases in California, Texas, Washington, Colorado and other western states.
Mr. Hamblett has also served as national trial counsel in the asbestos litigation, trying numerous cases to verdict and obtaining defense verdicts based upon medical, exposure and state-of-the-art issues. He has extensive experience working with and cross-examining national experts in all fields pertinent to toxic tort, products liability and contractor and premises liability cases.
Albert May v. Raymark Industries, Inc., et al., San Francisco, California. The plaintiff alleged that he had asbestosis and an increased risk of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. The jury returned a defense verdict, concluding that the plaintiff did not have an asbestos-related injury.
Steven Lutz v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., Alameda County, California. The plaintiff alleged that his lung cancer was due to exposure to asbestos. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff's lung cancer was not caused by exposure to asbestos.
Elrena Fortune v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., San Francisco, California. The plaintiff alleged that she had asbestosis and an increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to asbestos. The jury returned a defense verdict, concluding that the plaintiff did not have an asbestos-related injury.
Mildred Sprowl v. Celotex Corporation, et al., Solano County California. The plaintiff died of lung cancer allegedly due to asbestos. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff's lung cancer was not caused by exposure to asbestos.
Loyce Click v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., Harris County, Texas. The plaintiff died of mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the court granted the defendant manufacturer's motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to introduce sufficient evidence that the defendant's product was a cause of the plaintiff's mesothelioma.
James G. Davidson, et al. v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al., Harris County, Texas. Seven plaintiffs alleged they had asbestosis and an increased risk of cancer due to exposure to asbestos. Counsel for plaintiffs asked the jury to award 5.25 million in compensatory damages and 7 million in punitive damages. The jury returned defense verdicts in all seven cases finding that the defendant's product was not defective and the defendant was not negligent.
Ernest Platt v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff died of mesothelioma due to asbestos and was occupationally exposed to the defendant's asbestos-containing product. The jury returned a defense verdict based on a state of the art defense, concluding that the defendant's product was not defective and the defendant was not negligent.
Jesse Riggs v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, et al., Grayson County, Texas. The plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis by both plaintiff and defense expert witnesses and his treating doctors. He worked directly with the defendant's asbestos-containing product for many years. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the defendant's asbestos-containing product was not defective and that the defendant was not negligent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.