 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doyle v. Blankenship2/28/2003
but also that such exposure constituted a substantial factor in plaintiff's illness to a reasonable medical certainty. However, a plaintiff opposing a summary judgment motion need not prove all elements of his case; he must only produce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the facts and issues presented in the moving papers. Defendant here contended that the evidence of exposure was insufficient to prove causation as a matter of law but did not present any expert testimony that the level of exposure as described would be insufficient to prove causation. Thus, the only question framed by defendant's motion is whether the totality of the evidence presented is potentially sufficient to support expert testimony to the effect that exposure to its products was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's alleged injuries. We have concluded that it is.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiff shall recover his costs of appeal.
We concur:
REARDON, Acting P.J.
SEPULVEDA, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|