Asbestos in California

And at that time in 1981, the 204 product contained asbestos; is that correct? A. At what time? Q. In 1981. A. Yes. Q. And the 208 product also contained asbestos; is that correct? A. That's correct.]) Plaintiffs present evidence that the only reason Henry Company stopped incorporating asbestos into its products in 2004 was because of the rising costs and difficulties in acquiring asbestos as a raw material. (Sandoval Decl. Ex.

There is no evidence indicating what Johns-Manville did with this asbestos, and no evidence that the Stockton facility manufactured asbestos insulation as opposed to any other asbestos-containing product or component.

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 45.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 45.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

That testimony actually states that if there is any asbestos in a product like Cashmere Bouquet, it can be dangerous to someone using it. (Gurien Decl., Ex. D at p. 653.) It does not state that the product actually had asbestos in it, Defendant knew the product contained asbestos, or that Defendant knew the product was dangerous to consumers.

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 45.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 45.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 74-79.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

Robertss exposure to asbestos at ATSF without establishing a nexus between the asbestos in the air at the ATSF shop and an SGA product. As will be discussed below, Plaintiffs fail to present evidence that an SGA asbestos-containing product was present at Mr. Robertss worksite. Because there is no evidence that SGA was responsible for asbestos present at the ATSF shop, the court did not rely on Dr. Horns testimony on the levels of asbestos present at the ATSF shop. III.

California law generally does not hold a manufacturer of a product liable for replacement asbestos-containing subcomponents supplied by another manufacturer. California accepts the bare metal defense such that manufacturers of a product are not generally liable for design defect or failure to warn when asbestos-containing sub-components it did not manufacture or supply are incorporated into its product. ( O'Neil v.

However, the assertion that an expert will potentially testify as to the asbestos content of a product does not provide any specific fact to support the assertion that any product contained asbestos. The only other specific facts Plaintiffs present in their written discovery responses supporting the asbestos content of Square D products to which Mr.

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

Jordan was EXPOSED to ASBESTOS from any product manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed or otherwise MARKETED by GRAYBAR. (Cappy Decl. Ex. E at p. 2.)

The primary substantive difference between federal maritime law and California law is in the treatment of a manufacturer of a product which incorporated asbestos-containing subcomponents. California accepts the bare metal defense and holds manufacturers of an asbestos-containing product not liable for failing to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing sub-components which were not originally incorporated into its product. (See O'Neil v.

s product were asbestos-containing brake linings while here, plaintiff?s own deposition testimony demonstrates that defendant?s product(s) at issue did not require asbestos to function nor was asbestos always used in conjunction with defendant?s product(s) at issue. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45am. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 74-79.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

California law generally does not hold a manufacturer of a product liable for replacement asbestos-containing subcomponents supplied by another manufacturer. California accepts the bare metal defense such that manufacturers of a product are not generally liable for design defect or failure to warn when asbestos-containing sub-components it did not manufacture or supply are incorporated into its product. ( O'Neil v.

s machines were used on asbestos-containing brakes. It is the asbestos content of a product that makes it inherently dangerous. (Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564.) Defendant?s machines are more analogous to the stove in Garman. As in that case, it was a defect in the product of another which proximately caused the injury. The only alleged defect in Hennessy?s machines is that they caused another defective product to injure the decedent.

Laals exposure to a product for which Defendant was responsible, and that this product contained asbestos. (See LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [The material issue in a talc asbestos case is not the plaintiff's exposure to the product, but the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos through use of a talc product not designed to contain that mineral.

Where a plaintiffs allegations pertain to asbestos contamination of a talc product, the plaintiff is required to present evidence it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

California law generally does not hold a manufacturer of a product liable for replacement asbestos-containing subcomponents supplied by another manufacturer. California accepts the bare metal defense such that manufacturers of a product are not generally liable for design defect or failure to warn when asbestos-containing sub-components it did not manufacture or supply are incorporated into its product. ( O'Neil v.

Dunlavey was exposed to asbestos or an asbestos-containing product for which Fluor was responsible. Specifically, Fluor argues Plaintiffs must first demonstrate Mr. Dunlavey actually worked with or around an asbestos-containing product for which Fluor was responsible. No witness had any knowledge or information that Mr. Dunlavey worked with or around any Fluor equipment, product, or service&Thus, Plaintiffs have no evidence establishing exposure to asbestos related to Fluor.

Gildeas declaration offers no opinion as to whether there was asbestos within any Mary Kay product; only that Mary Kay never intended to include asbestos as an ingredient. 3. Madl Decl. at ¶ 11, 7:2- 20, a description of Mary Kay corporate history and product manufacture is inadmissible for lack of foundation. Dr.

Brockway to respirable asbestos fibers since the product was wet when applied. With respect to the caulking product, Sherwin-Williams contends that there is no evidence that such product manufactured by DAP was asbestos-containing or that Mr. Brockway's use of the product exposed Mr. Brockway to respirable asbestos fibers. However, these issues are moot as Plaintiffs do not assert liability against Sherwin-Williams based on any Sherwin-Williams paint product or DAP caulking product. (PRDSS ¶ 4.)

Eaton Corporation Defendant Eaton Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs William Gaborko and Mary Gaborko cannot show exposure to a product from Defendant containing asbestos. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendants products exposed the decedent to asbestos.

(2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 630, the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment involving allegations of asbestos exposure from a shave talc product. The plaintiff had used four to six containers of the shave talc between 1959 and 1962. ( Id. at p. 632.) The plaintiffs expert stated the talc was sourced from mines contaminated with asbestos, FDA tests in 1972 and 1976 showed the shave talc product contained asbestos, and his tests of samples of the shave talc product revealed asbestos. ( Id.

Plaintiffs discovery responses do not identify any asbestos-containing Joy Global product, any asbestos-containing component, any asbestos-releasing work practice, or any Joy-supplied replacement part. Mr. Chavezs testimony likewise does not supply evidence identifying any asbestos-containing Joy Global product or any asbestos exposure attributable to Joy Global. (Motion at p. 9.)

Glickmans product identification testimony does not pinpoint a specific, individual product line known to contain asbestos, the court is persuaded that the discovery responses presented do not give rise to an inference that Plaintiffs lack and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence that Mr. Glickman was exposed to an asbestos-containing Square D product. Mr.

Surtees was exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured or supplied by Komatsu. (Motion at p.8 [Plaintiffs have produced no admissible evidence that Mr. Surtees was exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured or supplied by Komatsu. As set forth above, Plaintiffs identified no specific asbestos-containing Komatsu component in discovery. (UMF Nos. 38.) Mr.

to fairly draw[] the inference that the product at issue in the case contained asbestos during the exposure period. ( Ibid. ) Here, the court finds that Plaintiff presented admissible evidence that the talc used in the manufacture of Gold Bond product was contaminated with asbestos.

Longo tested the Turf Builder product used by Dr. Beach. [UMF 59.]& In summary, Dr. Longos declaration confirms that the product includes asbestos, confirms that the asbestos can be released when the product is used, and he expressly does not opine that those fibers did not contribute to cause Dr. Beachs mesothelioma. ( Id. at pp. 9-10.) The pertinent portion of Dr.

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

devoid as to threshold exposure to an asbestos containing product for which Defendant is responsible.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Robertshaw product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Robertshaw product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Robertshaw product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Robertshaw product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Robertshaw product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Robertshaw product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

He concludes that even assuming that trace amounts of asbestos occur at times in the source mines, no expert could determine that any particular shipment of talc contained asbestos or that any particular product made with the talc contained asbestos. ( Id. at pp. 12-13.) He also reviewed product formulation and product testing information, which he concludes shows only a single finding of possible asbestos in a batch of talc intended for Cashmere Bouquet. ( Id. at p. 15.)

This interrogatory asks for the identity of each product that exposed Roberto Sotomayor to asbestos and the name of the manufacturer of the product if the manufacturer is not a named defendant. Plaintiff objected that the request seeks attorney-client privileged and work product information. The objection is baseless. Whether some product exposed Plaintiff to asbestos does not require the disclosure of any privileged information.

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

Plaintiffs do not present evidence that Bauer exclusively manufactured stucco such that the court could infer any materials it ordered were incorporated into that product line. The bare sale of asbestos to a company cannot support the reasonable inference that every product manufactured by that company contained asbestos. Therefore, the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the inference that Bauer stucco products contained asbestos.

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

Campbell was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which Allied was responsible. The burden shifts to Plaintiffs to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact as to Mr. Campbells exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Allied is responsible. 2. Plaintiffs Burden Plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Campbell was exposed to asbestos by a product for which Allied was responsible.

However, even if a plaintiff establishes exposure to a particular asbestos-containing product, there remains the question of whether the risk of cancer created by a plaintiffs exposure to a particular asbestos-containing product was significant enough to be considered a legal cause of the disease.

Runne was exposed to an asbestos-containing Highland product. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Runne was exposed to an asbestos-containing Highland product. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

Bay Area in the 1960's and 1970's, including Parker 5910 asbestos cloth, Rockwell asbestos-containing gaskets and packing; Sacomo asbestos-containing gaskets and packing, including Sacomo 8900 high pressure asbestos sheet gaskets, Sacomo 8124 high pressure asbestos sheet gaskets, Sacomo 1005 asbestos packing; Parker 5910 asbestos cloth and Sacomo 910 asbestos cloth. (Jackson Dec., Ex. A.) Parker-Hannifin focuses on Mr.

Wilemons exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Cleveland Cliffs was responsible. Plaintiffs written discovery responses fail to identify any specific product which Mr. Wilemon was exposed to.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Flowserve product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Flowserve product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Flowserve product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Flowserve product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Flowserve product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Flowserve product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

He also states he reviewed a March 16, 2004 affidavit, based on which I am informed that asbestos was removed as a component part of DAPs entire product line by the end of 1978. ( Id. , ¶ 14.) Gottesfeld concludes that the DAP acoustical sealant used by Mr. Chaney in 1978, which was sold or supplied by [Defendant], contained asbestos because, prior to the end of 1978, the product was manufactured with chrysotile asbestos. ( Id. , ¶ 26.)

asbestos.

the plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective asbestos-containing product].)

The court held this fact pattern was different than the facts in Lyon because the plaintiff in Lyon used the product regularly over 20 years, there was no evidence of other sources of asbestos, and the plaintiffs expert concluded all Cashmere Boutique product contained significant concentrations of asbestos. ( Id. at p. 636.)

Caton was exposed to any product sold by Westwood, let alone that this product contained asbestos. ( Casey v. Perini Corp . (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1238-1239[In McGonnell, we concluded this mere possibility was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding causation. [Citation.]

Beach ever encountered an asbestos-containing product for which Defendant was responsible. Defendant also presents affirmative evidence that Pulpdent manufactured two varieties of periodontal dressing, only one of which contained asbestos. Defendant also presents affirmative evidence that an individual could not identify the presence of asbestos in a product based on observing fibers in that product.

He concluded that even assuming that trace amounts of asbestos occur at times in the source mines, no expert could determine that any particular shipment of talc contained asbestos or that any particular product made with the talc contained asbestos. ( Id. , ¶ 43.) He also reviewed product formulation and product testing information, which he concluded shows only a single finding of possible asbestos in a batch of talc intended for Cashmere Bouquet. ( Id., ¶ 54.)

Schnug was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which Defendant was responsible.

Swifts threshold exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Defendant is responsible.

However, these discovery responses do not show any specific facts establishing that any officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant knew about the tests showing the presence of asbestos in its product, or that the quantity of asbestos within the product made it hazardous. A defendants knowledge of the hazards of asbestos generally does not translate into knowledge that a talc-based product was dangerous. ( McNeal v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.

In response to Standard Interrogatory No. 18 asking for a description of each product (including trade name, product type, asbestos content, packaging, and manufacturer) that exposed Plaintiff to asbestos, Plaintiff responded that she was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products due to her proximity to her husbands home remodeling and construction work, automotive repair and maintenance, and clothing coated with asbestos-containing dust between the 1950s and the 1980s. (Defendants Index, Ex.

In Strobel , the Court of Appeal held: the summary judgment record here shows long term use of a talcum powder product alleged to contain asbestos by a mesothelioma sufferer who was not exposed to any other known source of asbestos above background asbestos levels that are ever-present in the environment, together with expert testimony reporting positive test results for the presence of asbestos in ore from the sources used to manufacture the product.

Arevalos threshold exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Northgate was responsible. The affirmative evidence Northgate relies upon is inadmissible and therefore insufficient to satisfy its initial burden. Even if admissible, this evidence does not establish that products sold by Northgate were asbestos-free, nor did it demonstrate that Northgate could not have behaved negligently.

Johnson ever came into contact with a product manufactured, distributed or supplied by Carlisle, let alone a Carlisle product which contained asbestos. (UMF Nos. 9-11.) Therefore, Plaintiffs discovery responses which specifically identify Mr. Johnson as the sole product identification witness against Carlisle are devoid of factual support, as he has no knowledge of any facts establishing his exposure to any asbestos-containing product manufactured, sold, supplied, or distributed by Carlisle.

Hartounian cleaned the product off his hands by wiping it with rags or removing it with a solvent. ( Id . 1152:2-5.) Mr. Hartounian did not know what the product was made of and did not know the product contained asbestos. ( Id . 1158:14-22.) Henry advances Mr. Hartounians deposition testimony to show that Plaintiffs lack and cannot reasonably obtain evidence showing what Henry product Mr. Hartounian used or whether it was made of asbestos.

(Reply at pp.2-3 [Plaintiffs cannot reasonably infer that just because some products for which Rockwell is legally responsible may have contained small amounts of encapsulated chrysotile asbestos during a certain timeframe, that in and of itself, means that Mr. Campbell necessarily worked with or around that product in the first place, let alone that he was exposed to asbestos from that product.

s machines were used on asbestos-containing brakes. It is the asbestos content of a product that makes it inherently dangerous. (Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564.) Defendant?s machines are more analogous to the stove in Garman. As in that case, it was a defect in the product of another which proximately caused the injury. The only alleged defect in Hennessy?s machines is that they caused another defective product to injure the decedent.

Dunlavey) developed mesothelioma from occupational exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products from his work as a pipefitter between 1967 and 2006. On April 20, 2026, Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd. (Calaveras or Defendant) moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs lack and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Mr. Dunlavey was exposed to any product that contained Calaveras asbestos fibers.

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.)

(Motion at p.5 [Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos containing product manufactured by W.W. Henry. However, even if Plaintiff could argue that W.W. Henry manufactured an asbestos-containing product that Plaintiff worked with or around, there is zero evidence demonstrating causation such as the frequency, proximity and intensity of exposure.

Longs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff request, among other things, that Plaintiff provide: (1) all evidence that any talcum powder product sold by Longs exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (2) all talcum powder products that Plaintiff claims were obtained from Longs and purportedly exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (3) all instances where a talcum powder product was purchased from Longs to which Plaintiff was exposed; (4) all stores where anyone purchased any talcum powder product that allegedly exposed

Longs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff request, among other things, that Plaintiff provide: (1) all evidence that any talcum powder product sold by Longs exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (2) all talcum powder products that Plaintiff claims were obtained from Longs and purportedly exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (3) all instances where a talcum powder product was purchased from Longs to which Plaintiff was exposed; (4) all stores where anyone purchased any talcum powder product that allegedly exposed

Hernandezs threshold exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Defendant is responsible. 2. Plaintiffs Burden: Plaintiffs fail to present sufficient affirmative evidence to create a triable issue of material fact as to Mr. Hernandezs threshold exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Defendant is responsible.

Defendant responded that there is no evidence Jose Martinez was exposed to asbestos from Defendants products because it never sold raw asbestos, Monolite exterior stucco did not contain asbestos or talc, it does not know if Riverside Cement contained asbestos, and Expos products contained asbestos. Defendant did not identify specific documents or people with knowledge other than Brad Benson and Robert Papera. (Ex. H at pp. 3-6.)

Further, Whittaker contends that Plaintiff cannot show that "it is more likely than not that the talc product [used by Plaintiff] was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it." (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal. App. 5th 475, 489 ["The material issue in a talc asbestos case is not the plaintiff's exposure to the product, but the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos through use of a talc product not designed to contain [asbestos]."].)

Longo concluded that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from J&J's Baby Powder product at levels that were substantial and well above any background or ambient levels of airborne asbestos. (Id.) Plaintiff also provides the declaration of expert geologist, Dr. Krekeler, who concluded that asbestos was present in the talc source mines for the Baby Powder product. (Krekeler Dec. ¶¶ 1-50.)

The color of the asbestos-containing mineral core in Ceco doors was off-white or milky white, and was not dark in color. (Id. ¶ 29.) The texture of the asbestos-containing core in Ceco doors was granular in nature as it was essentially a ceiling tile product seen in office buildings but adapted for use as a core in doors. (Id. ¶ 30.)

Anderson was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which Emerson is responsible. 2. Plaintiffs Burden Plaintiffs satisfy their burden to create a triable issue of material fact as to Mr. Andersons threshold exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Defendant was responsible. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue: The evidence regarding Stephen Andersons exposure to original asbestos-containing U.S.

Case Number: 21STCV23911 Hearing Date: February 9, 2023 Dept: 15 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Martha Ramos alleges Jesse Ramos was exposed to asbestos supplied by Defendant Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff has no evidence of exposure from a product containing its asbestos. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Davidson sufficiently identified the presence of a Cutler-Hammer asbestos-containing product onboard the Passumpsic.

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

Rockwell states there is no evidence the equipment Bobby Williams worked with contained asbestos because he never tested it and it did not contain the word asbestos on it. (Motion at p. 15.) The fact that Williams did not first test a product for asbestos before he used it is not unusual. It is hard to imagine how he was supposed to test a product when he was working on an elevator. Defendant did not show that Plaintiffs cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Bakelite contained asbestos.

Where asbestos was not an intended ingredient in a talc product, plaintiffs bear the additional burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the talc product was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it. ( LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [hereinafter Gibbons ].)

in the product in the 1970s, Defendant was working on changing the restrictions on asbestos, and at some point Defendant placed warnings on the product.

Uthoff was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which it was responsible. Because Henry contends it made both asbestos-containing and non-asbestos-containing versions of the product at issue, Plaintiffs discovery were required to set forth facts from which the court can reasonably infer that it was more likely than not that the plaintiff was exposed to an asbestos-containing variety of the defendants product. (See Collin, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p.593.)

He concluded that even assuming that trace amounts of asbestos occur at times in the source mines, no expert could determine that any particular shipment of talc contained asbestos or that any particular product made with the talc contained asbestos. ( Id. , ¶ 39.) He also reviewed product formulation and product testing information, which he concluded show only a single finding of possible asbestos in a batch of talc intended for Cashmere Bouquet. ( Id., ¶ 50.)

And there is little difference between saying asbestos-containing product and product containing asbestos or product that had asbestos in it or product made with ingredients that contained asbestos. The motion is denied. Defendants MIL Re Disclosure of Witness and Exhibits Defendant Merle Norman Cosmetics moves to exclude all evidence not disclosed 72 hours in advance. This is not a proper motion in limine.

asbestos-related injuries, and whether it has insurance coverage for asbestos claims.

No California case has held that a plaintiff in an asbestos-related cancer case must produce any specific form of epidemiological study in order to meet the burden of proving that exposure to a defendant's product was a substantial fact in causing the illness. In Rutherford, medical testimony (offered by Dr.

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.

Zeitz describes the particular significance of asbestos hazards to end-users of its gaskets. ( Id. [The cost of company-wide health programs and controlling the environment in which asbestos is handled is causing many to seek alternatives to using the product. One problem for all suppliers and users of asbestos products is how the end user disposes of the product.

asbestos levels that are ever-present in the environment, together with expert testimony reporting positive test results for the presence of asbestos in ore from the sources used to manufacture the product.”

Defendant has shifted the burden of proof in that plaintiff's response to defendant's "state all facts" interrogatories does not provide a basis for linking plaintiff to an asbestos product supplied by defendant. In response, plaintiff's declaration is more precise. It provides evidence that defendant supplied transite pipe, pipe containing asbestos, in the 1960's and 1970's where plaintiff worked installing sprinkler systems. In doing so, plaintiff cut the pipe.

Rosas threshold exposure to an asbestos containing product. Therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact as to Ms. Rosas exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Mary-Kay is responsible. 2. Plaintiffs Burden Plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact as to Ms. Rosas exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which Defendant is responsible.

(2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 463, because the plaintiff in Lyon used the product regularly over 20 years, there was no evidence of other sources of asbestos, and the plaintiffs expert concluded all Cashmere Boutique product contained significant concentrations of asbestos. ( Id. at p. 636.)

Salerno does not remember observing anyone install an OEM Mazda product in Ms. Marschiks presence. ( Id . at 255:3-8.) Mazda fails to meet its burden to show that Plaintiff lacks and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that she was exposed to asbestos by an asbestos-containing product for which it was responsible.

In response to Special Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiffs stated Wendell Montgomery was exposed to asbestos from Defendant when he worked for Burke Construction between 1983 and 1987, Defendants representative admitted Defendant knew asbestos caused mesothelioma and one of Defendants products contained asbestos, and Defendant did not warn its customers about the risk and did not put warnings on the product. (Defendants Index, Ex. T at pp. 2-6.)