Johnson v. ArvinMeritor

Summary judgment was properly granted against truck repairman plaintiff who had sued brake manufacturers and designers for asbestos exposure, since he introduced no evidence linking defendants to any products that he had used in repairing trucks.  Summary judgment was properly granted to truck brake manufacturers and designers in this case brought by a truck repairman and his son for exposure to asbestos in the brakes.  The defendants carried their summary judgment burden by showing that plaintiff’s discovery responses did not reveal any evidence linking the defendants to products that the repairman used in repairing trucks.  Plaintiff failed to produce any other evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the particular defendants supplied the brake parts that the repairman used to repair the trucks or any evidence that the repairman had performed the initial brake repair on a truck, so as to be exposed to the original manufacturer equipment.  The defendants could not be held liable for defective design because their brake design did not require asbestos-containing brake linings, although those were the most common type at the time.

California Court of Appeal (Bruiniers, J.); February 2, 2017 (published March 2, 2017); 2017 WL 825272

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s