 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schmidt v. A-Best Products Co.11/22/2004
the decedent's injuries and subsequent death. Judgment Entry, Nov. 10, 2003, at 5.
{ } Appellant maintains James Renshaw testified, at his deposition, that he observed appellant working with Garlock gaskets and packing material. However, Mr. Renshaw also admitted that he did not know whether the Garlock gaskets contained asbestos. Depo. James Renshaw at 92.
{ } We conclude the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the issue of causation because appellant failed to present any evidence that Garlock's products contained asbestos. Appellant also failed to present evidence regarding the release of fibers, the size of the facility or the extent of the decedent's exposure to Garlock's products.
C. Dana Corporation
{ } The trial court granted Dana Corporation's motion for summary judgment on the basis that appellant failed to present evidence that the decedent was ever exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Dana Corporation.
{ } Appellant argues on appeal that the deposition testimony of James Renshaw and Dale Kaiser establish that appellant worked with asbestos-containing products manufactured by Dana Corporation. Specifically, appellant argues, " easonable minds could conclude that because there was other gasket material available, that Victor gaskets (manufactured by Dana Corporation) were available, and that since the gasket material was of a heat resistant quality, that it contained asbestos. This raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether Mr. Schmidt was exposed to any asbestos-containing Dana products." Appellant's Brief at page 14.
{ } We decline to make such an assumption where the depositions contain no evidence of the decedent's actual exposure to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Dana Corporation. Absent any exposure, the trial court properly concluded that appellant also cannot establish causation. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted Dana Corporation's motion for summary judgment.
D. Lincoln Electric
{ } The trial court granted Lincoln Electric's motion for summary judgment concluding that appellant failed to present evidence that the decedent was ever exposed to asbestos-containing products manufacture by Lincoln Electric.
{ } In response, appellant cites the deposition testimony of James Renshaw. Mr. Renshaw testified that Lincoln Electric provided welding rods while he was employed at J & L. A review of the record indicates this testimony was not presented in the case sub judice, but instead presented in another case in which the decedent is not involved. In fact, Mr. Renshaw never mentioned welding rods from Lincoln Electric in the case sub judice. Appellant also relies upon the affidavit of Dr. Holstein, which the trial court struck.
{ } Therefore, we conclude the trial court properly granted Lincoln Electric's motion for summary judgment because there was no evidence presented that the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Lincoln Electric.
{ } Based upon the above analysis, we conclude the trial court did not err when it granted appellees' motions for summary judgment.
{ } Appellant's Second Assignment of Error is overruled.
{ } For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J. Gwin, P. J., and Boggins, J., concur.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|