Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Asbestos

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Williams v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2024) 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 254

In Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, the Supreme Court held that an employer owes a duty of care to only the members of the employee's household to avoid secondary exposure to asbestos.  This decision holds that the same household limitation does not restrict a manufacturer's strict liability for design defects or failures to warn regarding its asbestos-containing… Read More

Bader v. Johnson & Johnson, No. A158868, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 1048 (Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2022)

This decision affirms a $12 million compensatory damage judgment agaisnt J&J and Colgate for products liability and other torts arising from plaintiff's mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos or asbestos-like fibers in defendants' talc products.  The trial court did not err in giving a jury instruction on causation patterned after Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953.  Other challenged jury… Read More

Hahn v. N.Y. Air Brake LLC, No. A161199, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 342 (Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022)

In this asbestosis case, plaintiffs added Air Brake in place of a Doe defendant shortly after Boeing produced documents showing that Air Brake designed the brake shoes for its light rail cars, specifying brake pads containing asbestos.  The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on limitations grounds after concluding that plaintiffs "knew or should have known" of Air Brake's… Read More

Cahill Constr. Co. v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty., No. A162885, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 587 (Ct. App. July 19, 2021)

Under CCP 2025.295, the deposition of a plaintiff can take no longer than 7 hours if (a) the action is for injury or illness from mesothelioma, and (b) a doctor certifies that the plaintiff suffers from mesothelioma raising a substantial medical doubt that plaintiff will survive beyond six months.  If more than 20 defendants appear at the deposition, the court… Read More

Swanson v. Marley-Wylain Co. (2021)

The trial court prejudicially erred in this asbestosis case in giving a causation instruction based on California law.  In an earlier writ proceeding, the Court of Appeal had held that Michigan law applies to this case, at least as against Marley-Wylain because the plaintiff worked in Michigan while employed by Marley-Wylain and was exposed to asbestos in Michigan during that… Read More