 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Niven v. E.J. Bartells Co.9/20/1999
sional showing that Niven's lung cancer could have been diagnosed more than three years before he filed the present suit. See Green, 136 Wn.2d at 100.
Application of the traditional discovery rule disposes of this case the same way it did in Green. We conclude the dismissal of Niven's case cannot be affirmed on the basis that it is time-barred.
SABERHAGEN
Niven also appeals from the dismissal of his claim against Saberhagen. He sued Saberhagen as a successor to the Brower Company. He alleges that Brower had a contract to install asbestos-containing insulators at Todd Shipyard when he worked there for about one month during 1967.
To establish that Brower products were being installed at Todd during the month Niven worked there, Niven declares that he saw people working at Todd who to his knowledge had worked for Brower on previous jobs. This is insufficient to establish more than a speculative link between Brower products and Niven's injuries. The court did not err in dismissing Niven's claim against Saberhagen.
The order of summary Judgement dismissing Rapid-American is reversed. The order of summary Judgement dismissing Saberhagen is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
|