The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four in Los Angeles handed down a decision in an asbestos case that involved appellate issues pertaining to causes of action for strict products liability and premises liability, primary and secondary (“take-home”) exposure, liability for replacement component parts, and proper jury instructions to be given in asbestos cases on the issue of substantial factor.  Joseph Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company, et al. (Cal. Ct. App., July 5, 2017, No. B245037), an opinion certified for publication on July 5, 2017, presents several factual scenarios to test a number of the decisions in the past decade that continue to shape asbestos litigation in California.   Motions for summary adjudication and defense jury verdicts were affirmed for Ford Motor Company and Exxon Mobile Corporation, while the trial court’s granting of a nonsuit for defendant Rossmoor Corporation was also affirmed.

Background

Plaintiffs  Marline and Joseph Petitpas filed suit against over 30 defendants, alleging Marline’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos from sources including, but not limited to, direct exposure from being in the presence of automotive maintenance work, secondary exposure by coming into contact  with Joseph’s clothes and person after he performed automotive maintenance work, primary exposure by visiting Joseph at construction sites while he was employed as an architectural drafter for Rossmoor, and secondary exposure through contact with Joseph’s clothes and person after he  visited construction sites in the course of his employment with Rossmoor.  Marline passed away during the appeal.

Issue One

Prior to trial, Exxon was granted summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ strict products liability claim.  Exxon, a premises defendant, demonstrated that in the course of Joseph’s work at a service station for which Exxon assumed liabilities, Joseph used replacement clutches and gaskets that came from a local independent auto parts store.  Exxon also showed that Joseph used brakes obtained from a mobile brake service company that not only provided brakes but also performed brake work at the service station.  Exxon’s evidence was sufficient to support an inference that the service station was not primarily in the business of supplying asbestos-containing vehicle parts.  In distinguishing this case from its decision in Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Company, Inc. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 249, the Court found the service station was a provider of services rather than a seller or distributor of asbestos-containing parts.  The Court also found no relationship existed between the service station and parts manufacturers in which the station could exert any influence on product safety on the manufacturers.  Exxon was not in the stream of commerce for asbestos-containing vehicle parts to the extent strict liability was warranted.

Issue Two

Exxon had also been granted summary adjudication relating to Plaintiffs’ claims of secondary exposure to asbestos.  The trial court applied Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.  (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 and found that Exxon was a property owner that had no duty to protect family members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the court of the property owner’s business.  During
Continue Reading Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co., et al.: A Look at the Evolving Landscape of Asbestos Litigation in California

A tale of two verdicts (1)Frequently as litigators, we are faced with questions about which factors can make or break a trial. The facts of each case and skill of counsel are obvious elements to obtaining a favorable verdict, but outcomes can also be heavily influenced by the venue, pre-trial rulings, voir dire, jury instructions and even the sheer whim of a jury.

Within the last few weeks, two separate verdicts came down in mesothelioma lawsuits. Both cases were heard in state courts, both cases involved a deceased plaintiff, both cases were brought by the same plaintiffs’ firm that specializes in asbestos claims, and both cases had only one defendant remaining at the time of verdict. However, one jury found for the defense, while the other awarded $81.5 million to the plaintiffs. What were the specific facts of each case, and what were the factors that might explain how two similar cases turned out so differently?

New Orleans, Louisiana

Mr. Thomas Hayden died of pleural mesothelioma in March 2016. He served in the Navy aboard the USS Edson in the 1960s, during which time he often worked in the boiler rooms. He later worked as a mechanic for a several decades, working on tractors, and, during this time, he also worked building scaffolding at various industrial facilities throughout South Louisiana. He alleged generally that he had worked with asbestos-containing friction products while working on tractors, and that he was in the vicinity of asbestos-containing products, particularly asbestos insulation, while he constructed scaffolding. Importantly, the plaintiffs in Hayden stipulated that they would not seek any damages for exposure to asbestos related to Mr. Hayden’s time in the Navy. Accordingly, the suit remained in state court.

Of the 72 originally sued defendants, only ExxonMobil, Corp. remained at the time of verdict. About 15 parties were dismissed via summary judgment, one (1) party was bankrupt, and the remaining parties settled or were dismissed voluntarily. Mr. Hayden was never employed directly by Exxon, but rather he allegedly worked as a contractor building scaffolding at an Exxon facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He could not identify whether he worked on the chemical or the refinery side of the Exxon facility. He could not recall if the scaffolding he built was for new construction or maintenance. Nor could he recall handling any asbestos-containing products at Exxon.  Moreover, he could not identify the brand name or manufacturer of any products installed by other crafts. He could not even recall seeing any pipe insulation at Exxon. Finally, his work at Exxon was for a total of approximately one (1) week, sometime between 1982 and 1985.

Counsel for Exxon stressed Mr. Hayden’s inability to recall basic details about his alleged work at the Exxon facility, suggesting to jurors that this lack of memory was because Mr. Hayden never actually worked at Exxon. In closing arguments, counsel for Exxon contrasted the dearth of testimony regarding Mr. Hayden’s alleged work at Exxon with his ability to recall co-workers, supervisors, and products at other worksites. Counsel suggested
Continue Reading A Tale of Two Verdicts