Source: http://hassard.com/EEH.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 09:08:11+00:00

Document:
Mr. Hartley’s primary professional experience is in defending toxic tort cases for product manufacturers and premises owners, where he has experience in all phases of the defense of such cases. Mr. Hartley has tried ten cases to verdict and has briefed or argued four cases before the California Court of Appeals.
Williamson v. Plant Insulation, San Francisco, California, 1991, (2nd chair). This living lung cancer case was reverse bifurcated, with the first phase devoted to whether or not plaintiff had lung cancer caused by asbestos. The jury found that it was. However, based on industrial hygiene testimony the client was dismissed due to lack of evidence of exposure to the client’s product. This case was later the subject of a published appellate court opinion regarding the impact on a judgment where the plaintiff passes away after verdict, but before judgment is entered.
Richie v. Kaiser Gypsum, San Francisco, California, 1992, (1st chair). This wrongful death lung cancer case was tried twice to hung juries. The client was a manufacturer of drywall joint compound. The first trial combined liability and causation. Liability was alleged to be due to the presence of decorative ceiling texture in numerous tract homes that plaintiff testified he removed. While the jury found that plaintiff’s lung cancer was caused by asbestos, they hung after several days deliberation on whether the sample evidence was consistent with the formulas for the client’s products. After a hiatus of about six weeks, the second case was tried on the issue of liability. After a three week trial, in which more than a dozen original owners of the houses at issue were subpoenaed to testify whether they had their decorative ceilings removed while they lived in the houses at issue, the jury hung after deliberation for nearly one week. The court ultimately granted a directed verdict in the client’s favor, which was upheld on appeal in a published opinion.
DeNola v. Kaiser Gypsum, San Francisco, California, 1996, (2nd chair).This wrongful death mesothelioma case involved allegations that the client product (drywall joint compound) was present in homes the decedent worked in. Plaintiff presented material science testimony that attempted to reverse engineer a sample and comparing the ingredients to a formula. The jury found that the plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of proof that the product at issue was present.
Lee v. Kaiser Gypsum, San Francisco, California, 2002, (2nd chair). This living lung cancer case involved allegations that the plaintiff was present when the client’s decorative ceiling texture was present in churches that he attended. Plaintiffs attempted to reverse engineer samples of the product by breaking it down to their constituent parts and comparing the analysis to a formula. The jury found for the plaintiff. However, the verdict was overturned by the court of appeal, where it was found that the trial court abused its discretion by barring the client’s primary liability expert on the grounds that the expert had not been offered for deposition sufficiently prior to the commencement of trial, despite documentation that the expert was so offered and flew from Canada for his depositon, only to have plaintiff’s counsel refuse to appear.
Haupt v. John Crane Inc., Los Angeles, California, 2009, (1st chair). This wrongful death matter involved career Navy machinist mate who developed mesothelioma. he claimed exposure from defendant's chrysotile gaskets and packing materials while working in the equipment rooms on Navy ships between 1959 and 1980. After the close of evidence, defendant won nonsuit as to punitive damages, negligence, strict liability failure to warn, and intentional failure to warn causes of action, leaving only a cause of action for strict liability design defect. The jury returned a plaintiff verdict finding defendant to be 3% at fault. Judgment was entered against defendant for a total of $30,000.
Richard Buccola v. A-1 Enterprises, Inc., et al., Los Angeles, California, 2010, (1st chair). This was a confirmed mesothelioma personal injury case. Mr. Buccola was 77 years old and owned a nursery and landscape contracting company. He claimed to have been exposed to asbestos from our client’s joint compound product as a bystander to remodeling work between 1960 and 1972. Our attorneys argued that his mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to asbestos from cement pipes and not from any alleged exposure to our client’s product. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that our client’s product was not defective and our client was not negligent.
William Dix v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 2010, (1st chair). In this wrongful death mesothelioma case, the plaintiffs claimed Mr. Dix was exposed to asbestos from our client’s joint compound product as a bystander during his 30 years of working for a telephone company in new homes. Our attorneys argued that there was insufficient evidence that the decedent had been exposed to asbestos from our client’s product and that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos while he worked as a fireman in the navy. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the decedent was not exposed to asbestos from our client’s product.
Boydston v. 2130 Leavenworth St. HOA, San Francisco, California, 2010, (1st chair). This was a homeowners association dispute where the court found that the association did not violate its fiduciary duties regarding certain maintenance decisions made by the board of directors.
Pfeifer v. John Crane Inc., Los Angeles, California, 2010, (1st chair). In this living mesothelioma case, the plaintiff allegedly used the client’s gasket and packing products numerous times over a thirty year period while he served in the Navy and as a civilian employee of the Air Force. The case involved wildly inconsistent testimony from the plaintiff regarding the frequency of use of the client’s products, and where the plaintiff sued numerous defendants (but not the client) in a prior asbestos personal injury action alleging exposure during the very same period in which the client’s products were allegedly used. This case is presently on appeal.
Duarte v. Boggs Steel Fabricatio,, California, 2005. Briefed and argued. In this case the decedent was fatally injured when he fell into a vat of hot liquid paper while trying to maneuver a chute manufactured by the client. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the risk was unforeseeable. This ruling was overturned on appeal. The case resolved short of trial.
Barr v. ACandS, California, 1997. Argued. California, 1997. In this asbestos bodily injury case the client was granted summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s filing of a second lawsuit alleging asbestos related injury was barred by the statute of limitations. The case was reversed on appeal, where it was held that a plaintiff who files a second asbestos lawsuit for a disease different from the first lawsuit is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Richie v. Kaiser Gypsum, California, 1994. Briefed and argued. In this asbestos related case, the appeal upheld the trial court’s grant of directed verdict in favor of the client after two full trials in which the jury was unable to reach a decision regaring the client’s liability. This case is better known as one of the cases that refused to extend enterprise liability in asbestos cases (issue involved a different defendant).

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