Phillips v. Honeywell International, Inc.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a letter, containing a remark showing callous indifference to worker death from asbestos, because the letter showed the employer was on notice of the risks of asbestos early, and prejudice from the callous remark was avoided by a jury instruction limiting consideration of the letter…

LAOSD Asbestosis Cases (Evans v. American Optical Co.)

In this asbestosis case against an independent contractor that laid gas pipelines for So. Cal. Gas, plaintiff’s employer, the trial court did not err in giving jury instructions about the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees, nor did it err in marking but not admitting a document used to refresh a…

Kase v. Metalclad Insulation Corp.

Defendant, a broker who arranged for asbestos-containing insulation products to be delivered to Naval shipyards for insulation of submarine pipes, may successfully invoke the defense contractor immunity doctrine, since the Navy’s detailed specifications could only be satisfied with asbestos-containing insulation, and the Navy had specifically studied and approved the aspect of the product—its asbestos—which was…

Kesner v. Superior Court

Employers and landowners owe a duty of care to members of an asbestos worker’s household, who habitually live with the worker and thus are exposed to the asbestos he or she brings home from work.  An employer owes a common law duty of care to members of their workers’ families to prevent transmission of asbestos,…

Rondon v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.

Manufacturer of auto brake forming tools is strictly liable for worker’s injury caused by breathing asbestos dust while using the tools in the intended manner on asbestos-laced auto brakes even though manufacturer did not make the brakes.  Following Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1133, this decision holds that the manufacturer of auto…

Moran v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.

Defendant failed to introduce any substantial evidence that plaintiff, though a salesman of asbestos-containing insulation and refractory, was aware of its cancer-causing quality, as would have been required for defendant to assert the sophisticated user defense.  This decision reverses a judgment based on a jury verdict for the defendant based on the sophisticated user defense…