Tag Archives: asbestos

Causation Science Really Does Matter In NY Toxic Tort Litigation

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In what may arguably be the most terse “landmark decision” to be published by the New York Court of Appeals (68 words/two sentences), New York’s highest court affirmed a trial court order setting aside an $11m jury verdict holding Ford Motor Company liable for a former auto mechanic’s mesothelioma, alleged to have been caused by 25 years of exposure to asbestos while servicing Ford vehicles.    The tweet-length decision in Juni v. A.O. Smith Water Products, was a re-affirmation by the New York Court of Appeals of its reasoning in two prior key decisions, Parker v. Mobil Oil, 7 NY3d 434 [2006] and Cornell v 360 W. 51st … Continue reading →

Connecticut Asbestos Court Gives Short Shrift To Daimler AG v. Bauman

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In a decision, dated September 7, 2017, in Rice v. American Talc Co., No. FBT CV-15-6053658-S (9/7/17), the Hon. Barbara N. Bellis of the Connecticut Superior Court of Fairfield at Bridgeport, who presides over the asbestos docket, ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman did not preclude Connecticut from exercising specific jurisdiction over Milwhite, Inc., a Texas-based talc mining company.  To better understand the court’s ruling, the undisputed facts are set forth briefly here: Ernest Rice, Jr, plaintiff’s decedent, worked at American Standard’s plumbing fixtures plant in Connecticut from 1962-1968 and alleges exposure to asbestos-containing talc (and … Continue reading →

Methodology “Mishmash” Dooms Plaintiff Experts in Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Case

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In a decision, dated September 25, 2017, a Philadelphia state trial court excluded the opinions of plaintiff’s experts, Mr. Sean Fitzgerald and Dr. Ronald Gordon, on the ground that they did not use generally accepted methodology in forming their scientific opinions.  The case, Sally Brandt v. The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. et. al. (Court of Commons Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, September 25, 2017), was being carefully watched because it was alleged that J&J’s cashmere bouquet talcum powder caused, not ovarian cancer–the disease entity at issue in the J&J talcum powder cases pending in St. Louis and elsewhere–but mesothelioma, which affects the … Continue reading →