Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/asbestos-152
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 04:06:29
Document Index: 156918374

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1529', '§ 1502', '§ 3294', '§ 1529', '§ 8358', '§ 5208', '§ 5208', '§ 6501', '§ 9030', '§ 5203', '§473']

Under California law, 8 CCR § 1529 applies to employers and provides safety regulations to protect the employees from asbestos exposure. (See, also 8 § 1502(a)).
Potential causes of action primarily arise out of tort law, such as negligence and wrongful death claims.
In product exposure cases, a “threshold issue in asbestos litigation is exposure to the defendant's product." (McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103). McGonnell “requires plaintiff to prove (1) exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing product, and (2) that exposure was, in reasonable medical probability, a substantial factor in causing the injury.” (McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103; also Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, 976-977).
Conversely, "[i]f there has been no exposure there is no causation." (McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103, citing Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 650, 655).
Regarding Affirmative Actions of Employees
In Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp., the “court found that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether the oil company was liable based on the affirmative acts of its own employees that allegedly contributed to the plaintiff’s asbestos exposure.” (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1331– 1332).
Regarding a Duty to Protect Workers’ Family Members
In Campbell v. Ford Motor Co., as modified on June 19, 2012, the court “concluded a property owner has no duty as a matter of law to protect family members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the course of the property owner's business” by applying the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, as clarified by Cabral v. Ralph's Grocery (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764. (Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 37).
Exposure and Substantial Factor
In the context of product exposure, “a plaintiff must demonstrate exposure to a defendant’s product ‘so that exposure is a possible factor in causing the disease’ before the court evaluates whether the exposure was a ‘substantial factor’ in causing the plaintiff’s alleged harm.” (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1415-1416).
For hazardous material and toxic substance litigation, “a plaintiff must demonstrate exposure to a defendant’s product and biological processes from the exposure which result in disease.” (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1415-1416.) “[T]he proper analysis is to ask whether the plaintiff has proven exposure to a defendant’s product, of whatever duration, so that exposure is a possible factor in causing the disease and then to evaluate whether the exposure was a substantial factor.” (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th at 1416.)
“Many factors are relevant in assessing the medical probability that an exposure contributed to plaintiff's asbestos disease. Frequency of exposure, regularity of exposure, and proximity of the asbestos product to plaintiff are certainly relevant, although these considerations should not be determinative in every case.” (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416, internal quotation marks omitted.)
“In an asbestos-related cancer case, the plaintiff need not prove that fibers from the defendant's product were the ones, or among the ones, that actually began the process of malignant cellular growth. Instead, the plaintiff may meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendant's product was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff's . . . risk of developing cancer.” (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 982–983; also Davis v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 477, 493).
Punitive damages, under California Civil Code § 3294, may be awarded where a company does not “share its knowledge of the dangers of asbestos with its customers or with individuals who would, predictably, be exposed to dust from its products, and that it instead sought to downplay the risk.” (Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 23, 34.) A “conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice within the meaning of section 3294 of the Civil Code.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.)
“In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896).
Furthermore, in Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., the Court of Appeals found that “intentionally marketing a defective product knowing that it might cause injury and death is ‘highly reprehensible’.” (Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 68, 85-86). The “prolonged failure to take adequate measures to protect people who worked with its products against a known hazard to their health and safety justifies the jury’s conclusion that its conduct towards workers exposed to the hazards in its products was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive.” (Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 68, 86).
The following are California regulations regarding asbestos, as provided by the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations’ Asbestos and Carcinogen Unit:
8 CCR § 1529. Asbestos (Asbestos Standards in Construction);
8 CCR § 8358. Asbestos (Asbestos Standards in Shipyards);
8 CCR § 5208. Asbestos (Asbestos Standards in General Industry);
8 CCR § 5208.1. Non Asbestiform Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite (General Industry Standards relating to Non-Asbestiform Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite);
Labor Code §§ 6501.5-6510 and 9020-9022 (Asbestos Contractor Registration, Asbestos Consultant and Technician Certification, and Asbestos Trainers Approval Requirements); and
Labor Code §§ 9030-9032 and 8 CCR § 5203 (Required Notifications by Employers Regarding Carcinogens)
Useful Rulings on Asbestos
JOHANSON VS. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, ET AL
Tentative Ruling on Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication: On the Court’s own motion, this matter is continued to Monday, May 14, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 8. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar. Tentative Ruling on Defendant Pneumo Abex’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendant, Pneumo Abex, LLC moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs, Oscar Jo...
..6: Overruled Objection No. 7: Overruled Objection No. 8: Overruled Objection No. 9: Overruled Objection No. 10: Overruled Summary Judgment Standard: The purpose of a summary judgment motion is to cut through the pleadings to determine whether trial is necessary. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. A moving defendant is entitled to summary judgment if all the papers submi...
STROBEL v COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. et al.
Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Safeway’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary AdjudicationTENTATIVE RULINGThe motions for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the issues, filed by defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON and JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. (c...
..cosmetic talc powder. Plaintiff frequently used Johnson’s Baby Power (“JBP”) from 1951 through 2014 and was exposed to JBP with diaper changes involving family members. During his childhood between 1951 through 1970, Plaintiff’s mother purcha...
NOLAN LAMB VS. CERTAINTEED COR
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY INC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication of punitive damages is denied. Causation Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff cannot prove causation because Plaintiff cannot show that he inhaled any asbestos from one...
..981 and 1990. (Lamb Decl. ¶3.) Mr. Lamb also stated that he encountered this Null-A-Fire sheetrock in homes and other buildings that were built in the early to mid-1970s. (Lamb Decl. ¶4.) Defendant admitted in interrogatory responses in another case that its Null-A-Fire sheetrock contained asbestos from 1967 to 1978. (Defendant’s Responses to San Francisco General Order 129 Interrogatories at page...
Carrera v. Brenntag North America, Inc., et al.
Motion: Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication Tentative Ruling: To deny Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. §473c) To deny Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s motion, in the alternative, for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. (Ibid.) Explanation: Motion for Summary Judgme...
..ld be resolved against the moving party.” (Buehler, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 526.) A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richf...
Richard Steiner et al vs Advance Auto Parts et al
Nature of Proceedings: Nissan's Summary Judgment Motion Motion of Defendant Nissan North America for Summary Adjudication Ruling: The motion of defendant Nissan North America, Inc., for summary adjudication is denied as to all requested summary adjudications on the grounds that triable issues of fact exist as set forth below. Background: Plaintiff Richard Steiner (“Steiner”) filed...
..l., exhibit T].) Steiner performed automotive repair and inspection work on asbestos- containing brakes, manual clutches, and engine and exhaust gaskets by which Steiner breathed in asbestos fibers. (Ibid.) Relevant to this motion, plaintiffs’ complaint asserts causes of action against defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”) for negligence, strict products liability, fraud/failure to warn...
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS VS ROCKWELL AUTOMATION CORP E
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON v. ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. Motions — Originally set for 5/15/18 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON TIG INSURANCE COMPANY’S “EXPECTED OR INTENDED” AND “KNOWN LOSS” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES APPLICATION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ON TIG INSURANCE COMPANY’S “EXPECTED OR INTENDED” AND “KNOWN LOSS” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES APPLIC...
..for summary adjudication in full 2. Grant applications to seal DISCUSSION I. Background[1] In the Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London litigation, the parties have filed, and plan on filing, a series of motions for summary adjudication directed to discrete issues in this litigation. In the instant motion, Meritor, Inc. (“Meritor”) for summary adjudication of TIG’s “Expected or Intended” an...
Recent Rulings on Asbestos
1-25 of 4097 results
A. James Robertson Ii (96)
Bruce E. Chan (64)
Charlotte W. Woolard (323)
Cynthia M. Lee (34)
David Ballati (8)
Diane Elan Wick (4)
Donna J. Hitchens (4)
Garrett L. Wong (14)
James L. Warren (10)
John J. Conway (3)
Julie Tang (5)
Loretta Giorgi (30)
Loretta M. Norris (7)
Pang Ly (4)
Patrick J. Mahoney (975)
Paul H. Alvarado (72)
Richard A. Kramer (14)
Robert L. Dondero (17)
Ronald E. Quidachay (1,595)
Teri L. Jackson (409)
Tomar Mason (100)
San Francisco County, CA (3,981)
If Defendants knew by virtue of what occurred in other apartments that there was likely mold and asbestos in Plaintiff 5 unit, this would bolster her claims and support a claim for punitive damages As another example, if Defendants delayed in addressing the mold/asbestos issue as to a number of other tenants, this would support Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages in that it would be some evidence that they did not just “drop the ball” this one time but instead acted intentionally, Therefore, the motions to
Smith provides expert opinion testimony that states in relevant part: (1) it is well established by epidemiological studies that asbestos is the major cause of malignant mesothelioma; (2) no level of exposure to asbestos has been established to be associated with zero risk of mesothelioma; (3) there is no need to recreate a product-specific epidemiological study to determine whether individuals exposed to asbestos from that product were at risk of developing mesothelioma since it is the asbestos from the product
Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 731, a plaintiff sued manufacturers of boilers that had been installed at his employment site for containing asbestos that caused his mesothelioma. (Id. at p. 733.) The plaintiff alleged the boilers contained asbestos insulation that was exposed whenever the manufacturers’ agents arrived to perform routine maintenance. (Id. at pp. 733–34.)
Background This is an asbestos litigation case. Kristie Doyle, and her son, Ethan Doyle, by and through his guardian ad litem (collectively “Plaintiffs”), bring causes of action for product liability and wrongful death against Imerys Talc America, Inc. (“Imerys”), Cyprus Mines Corporation (“Cyprus”), and Johnson & Johnson/Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“J&J”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
EVELYN CHANDLER, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH HEIR OF GAIL CHANDLER VS. PNEUMO ABEX LLC
No appearance is required under the following conditions: Case Management Conference - Case Management Program continued to 04/23/2020 at 08:30 in this department. An Attorney Compliance Statement shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days prior to hearing. New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 da...
To the extent any true assertion of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection are made with respect to any document or documents which are responsive to the categories requested, Mr.
(*delete this ¶) THE MOTION This motion for new trial is based solely on the alleged grounds that on October 18, 2019, nine days post-verdict in this case, the FDA reported finding asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Power and then advised consumers to stop using the product. Defendant recalled the specific batch of the product.
However, Plaintiffs do not present substantial evidence that a JBP product contained asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiff was exposed nor meaningfully link that JBP product purchased by or for Plaintiff to asbestos sourced from mines that may contain asbestos. Plaintiffs rely on the declaration of Dr. Cohen to which Defendants’ object on the basis of hearsay and foundation. A review of Dr.
“The sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products' potential hazards. (In re Asbestos, supra, 543 F.Supp. at p. 1151.) The defense is considered an exception to the manufacturer's general duty to warn consumers, and therefore, in most jurisdictions, if successfully argued, acts as an affirmative defense to negate the manufacturer's duty to warn. (Ibid.)” Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56, 65.
The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff’s response did not “state specific facts showing that [the plaintiff] was actually exposed to asbestos-containing material from [the defendant’s] products.” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiffs’ responses do refer to a specific Safety Kleen product.
EMIGH V. GEWALT
Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1204, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 545 for the proposition that orders disqualifying counsel are not always the product of motions by an attorney's present or former client. (See also Blue Water, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at pp. 485–486, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 641.) Shen does not contest Miller's standing to bring the underlying motion to disqualify counsel, therefore we will not address the issue further.” (Chih Teh Shen v. Miller (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 48, 56-57.)
On August 24, 2018, Vital responded, stating her dissatisfaction with Super Builders’ work product. On August 28, 2018, the roof in Plaintiff’s unit began to leak again. Although Plaintiff contacted Oak Hills, they did nothing. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants.
EPOCHAL ENTERPRISES INC VS LF ENCINITAS PROPERTIES LLC
The Tenant objects to this discovery on several grounds, including that it is overly broad, not germane to the issues presented in this lawsuit, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing, violates the Tenant's right of privacy in financial information, is unrelated to the Tenant's damages, and is subject to a host of other privileges (such as the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges).
This standard was extended to the work product doctrine in Rico, supra. However, “ ‘[m]ere exposure to an adversary’s confidences is insufficient, standing alone, to warrant an attorney’s disqualification.’ ” (State Fund, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at 657, quoting In re Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 589.) The means and sources of breaches are important considerations in a motion for disqualification. (Ibid.)
However, the Court notes that in Andrews, the primary focus of the factually-devoid nature of the plaintiff’s responses was that the responses were “devoid of material facts showing that Andrews had been exposed to a Foster Wheeler product.” (Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 106.) When the defendant in Andrews requested the identification of “each person having knowledge of facts and the facts known regarding each asbestos exposure,” the plaintiffs failed to provide any facts.
Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 647, 658, 271 Cal.Rptr. 698 [attorney may be disqualified from representing a party where the attorney received work product of moving party from an expert previously designated as moving party's expert].)
John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1300 [evidence that the defendant warned its workers about the dangers of asbestos but did not disclose to customers supported imposition of punitive damages against corporate defendant].) Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Radiator’s motion to strike as to the punitive damages allegations.
In Modisette, the court explained that the plaintiff's harm was not closely tied to the defendant driver's and Apple's actions: “Apple’s design of the iPhone . . . simply made [the defendant driver's] use of the phone while driving possible, as does the creator of any product (such as a map, a radio, a hot cup of coffee, or makeup) that could foreseeably distract a driver using the product while driving. . . . Apple's design of the iPhone did not put the danger in play.”
In support of its initial burden, WLI provides undisputed evidence that WLO had various on-product labels and other literature that accompany the subject cotton oto-dam and cartridge silicone impression material. (Fact 6.) WLI also argues that it sold its product to a sophisticated purchaser that WLI knew was aware or should have been aware of the specific dangers to its product.
Sanchez states: “In my expert opinion, the talc from the source mines used to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder was free of asbestos. Absent testing of an actual product, there is currently no scientific methodology and no available data for any expert to prove or otherwise conclude that any particular product manufactured with talc contained asbestos.” (Sanchez Decl., at ¶53.)
VIG FURNITURE INC VS LASKEY-WEIL III ET AL
Plaintiff argues that at most, the information subject to the subpoena is subject to qualified work product, not absolute attorney work product, and thus, information such as the identity and location of physical evidence or witnesses along with any photographs or factual observations or asbestos containing material of the Subject Property must be disclosed.
GIBSON VS. ACE HARDWARE CORP
Ay has opined that there is a reasonable probability that the drywall mud purchased and used by Gibson several times contained asbestos. Thus, Canoga has failed to meet its initial burden of production and persuasion that Gibson cannot produce evidence of his exposure to a product containing asbestos.
ARAMBULA VS. IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Written discovery benefits the propounding party because it is a product of the responding party’s time and effort to gather information in written responses, that were prepared over time. A deposition serves the essential purpose of enabling litigants and attorneys to assess the witness’ credibility, disposition, and to receive the benefit of unrehearsed answers to on-the-spot questioning.
Even if the burden had shifted, however, Gibson has demonstrated a material triable issue that Hamilton drywall mud contained asbestos, that Gibson was exposed to asbestos by virtue of his use of that product on numerous occasions, and that Sherwin-Williams failed to warn consumers and end users that this product contained asbestos. It is a reasonable inference that a product manufacturer has actual knowledge of the constituent ingredients of its products.