 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jenkins v. T&N;PLC5/28/1996
WOODS (Fred), J.
Defendant T&N;PLC filed an appeal from a judgment on a special verdict in favor of plaintiffs, awarding plaintiff Milton Jenkins $1,109,740 and plaintiff Maxine Jenkins $743,750. Defendant also appealed the trial court's order taking off calendar its motion to amend the judgment as to plaintiffs' settlement with defendant Fibreboard Corporation. Plaintiffs cross-appealed the trial court's application of Proposition 51.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Milton Jenkins was exposed to asbestos dust while working for St. Louis Southwestern Railroad as a yard clerk in 1942, 1946, and 1947, and while working on asbestos-containing pipe insulation when serving in the United States Navy from 1943 through 1945 and from 1951 through 1952.
No one warned Mr. Jenkins that being around asbestos dust might be hazardous to his health. Mr. Jenkins thought he worked safely with asbestos products.
Mr. Jenkins recalled that the logo on the boxes of pipe insulation that he worked with in the military, depicted a "very prominent" "kitty-cat." This logo was used by Keasbey & Mattison, a wholly owned subsidiary corporation of T&N;which dissolved in 1962.
The raw asbestos fibers in Keasbey & Mattison's pipe insulation were supplied in bulk by T&N; According to the deposition testimony of Sir Ralph Bateman, a former chairman of T&N; Keasbey & Mattison bought all its fibers from Raw Asbestos Distributors, a T&N;division. Sir Bateman began working for T&N;as a management trainee in 1931, transferred from Turner Brothers Asbestos or TBA, a T&N;subsidiary, to R.A.D. in 1940 or 1941, was promoted to director of R.A.D. in 1942, 1943 or 1944, and returned to TBA in 1948.*
In 1991, Mr. Jenkins was diagnosed with mesothelioma. According to the Jenkinses' medical expert, pathologist Victor Roggli, M.D., mesothelioma is a latent, asbestos associated disease which can develop 30 to 40 years after exposure to asbestos. T&N;s medical expert, pathologist John Craighead, M.D., admitted on cross-examination that he wrote an article stating that the type of mesothelioma which Mr. Jenkins contracted is exceptionally rare or never occurs in people not exposed to asbestos.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 29, 1992, the Jenkinses filed a complaint for personal injuries against multiple defendants, including T&N; The complaint contained causes of action for strict liability and loss of consortium. In addition to general and special damages, the Jenkinses sought damages for loss of earnings, income and earning capacity.*
Discussion*
1. Did the trial court allow plaintiffs' counsel to argue about alter ego liability? If so, was this error, and was it error for the trial court to not give a jury instruction against the alter ego theory of liability?*
2. Does the strict products liability doctrine apply to a bulk supplier of raw asbestos fiber who has not made any finished consumer product?
Since it is not disputed that T&N;was a bulk supplier of raw asbestos fiber who did not make any finished product, the independent review or de novo standard applies. Under this standard of review, the appellate court decides the issue anew, rather than defer to the trial court. ( Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 791, 799 [35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 883 P.2d 960]; Edgemont Community Service Dist. v. City of Moreno Valley (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1157, 1166 [42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 823].)
The strict products liability doctrine was established in California through Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 57 [27 Cal.
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.
|
|