 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Mobil Oil Corporation2/21/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
I. Introduction
In this appeal from a judgment following a jury's special verdict in an asbestos personal injury case, appellant Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil) claims (1) instructional error as to one of two bases of liability determined by the jury, (2) there was no substantial evidence to support the alternative negligence finding, (3) error in the trial court denial of Mobil's request for discovery regarding respondents' pretrial settlements with other defendants, and (4) error in computing the credits due to Mobil on account of those settlements. We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
II. Facts and Procedural History
Respondent George Robert Smith is a retired plumber and steamfitter suffering from lung cancer. On appeal, Mobil does not contest the jury's finding that his illness was caused by asbestos exposure.
For about a year during 1966 and 1967, Smith worked on a construction project at a refinery in Torrance, California, owned by Mobil. His employer on the project was Procon, an independent contractor that Mobil had hired to construct an addition to the refinery, immediately adjacent to the existing refinery complex. During the construction, Procon employees, including Smith, frequently removed asbestos insulation in order to gain access to the underlying pipes. As a result, asbestos dust pervaded the premises. Procon took no precautions to protect its employees from exposure to the asbestos dust. The employees were not aware until much later that asbestos was harmful.
At the same time, Mobil's own employees were working on the existing refinery premises in the immediate vicinity of where Smith was working for Procon on the refinery addition. These employees also frequently removed asbestos insulation from pipes, resulting in additional asbestos dust. Like Procon, Mobil took no precautions to prevent the Procon employees working nearby from being exposed to asbestos dust generated by Mobil's own asbestos removal activities.
Smith sued numerous defendants, including Mobil, whose conduct allegedly contributed to his asbestos-related illness. His wife, Hannah Smith, also sued for loss of consortium. By the end of the trial, all of the defendants except Mobil had either settled with the Smiths or been dismissed, so the Smiths' case was submitted to the jury only with regard to their claims against Mobil.
In a special verdict, the jury attributed 12.5 percent of Smith's injuries to Mobil's negligence, and found Mobil liable. It awarded George Smith economic damages in the amount of $319,500 and non-economic damages in the amount of $2.5 million, and awarded Hannah Smith $1.5 million for loss of consortium. The trial court entered judgment accordingly, in the total amount of $819,500 plus costs, subject to settlement credits to be determined by the court. Following posttrial proceedings regarding the amount of settlement credits, among other issues, the trial court entered an order calculating the settlement credits, which reduced the judgment amount to $716,270 plus costs. Mobil appeals from the judgment and from the posttrial order.
III. Discussion
A. Contentions on Appeal
The trial judge instructed the jury that it could find Mobil negligent, as the owner of the refinery where Smith worked, on any of three theories as
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|