 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.3/7/2005
Owen Brown brought this action against respondent Honeywell International, alleging that he contracted mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos manufactured by Bendix Corporation, Honeywell's predecessor-in-interest. Because the evidence fails to create a reasonable inference that Brown was exposed to asbestos manufactured by Bendix, we affirm the trial court's dismissal on summary judgment.
FACTS
Appellant Owen Brown served in the navy from 1940 to 1946. From 1947 to 1949, he worked in a service station. He later worked in a shipyard and at various construction jobs.
In October 2002, Brown was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. He then filed this action for personal injury against multiple defendants, alleging negligence, product liability, breach of warranty, and willful or wanton misconduct. At issue in this appeal is Brown's contention that he was exposed to asbestos from Bendix brake products while employed at a Trentwood, Washington, service station from 1947 to 1949.
Brown estimated that while working at the station, he replaced car brakes once or twice every two weeks using the following procedure: You'd take the wheels off, take the drums off, take an air hose and blow all the asbestos dust and things out of the - from around the back of the plate, remove the shoes, replace the old shoes with the new ones, place the drum back on, adjust the brakes to the drum, and get the air out of the cylinder.
Clerk's Papers, at 57. Brown recalled that he worked on various makes of cars, including General Motors, Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, and Ford. After removing old brakes from a car, Brown would take them to the dealership for that car and exchange them for new parts. From 1947 to 1950, Bendix was one of several suppliers of brake linings to GM.
In an initial deposition, Brown stated he could not recall the brand name, manufacturer, or supplier of any brake parts that he removed or installed while working at the service station. He later explained the basis for his belief that Bendix had supplied some of the old brake parts that he removed from cars:
Q: You said in your earlier testimony that you did not know the brand name or manufacturer of the old brake materials that you removed; is that correct?
A: Most of them. There was a Bendix at one time, it seems to me, and --
Q: Do you remember --
A: I can't remember the others.
Q: Do you remember that time that you removed a Bendix product?
A: Well, I - no, I can't really say.
Q: How did you know it was Bendix?
A: Well, I went - seems to me I took them to the Chevrolet dealer.
Q: And how did that tell you that it was a Bendix product?
A: I really can't answer that.
Q: So other than the fact that you took the old brake work materials to the Chevy dealer, there was no other indication that it was a Bendix product?
A: Well, most - I think most General Motor products was Bendix, as I recall.
Q: How did you know that?
A: Well, the name rings a bell. It was associated with General Motors.
...
Q: I was talking about the old brake materials that you would remove from cars, and you said that you thought some of those would have been Bendix, correct?
A: Right.
Q: Okay. And your reason for believing that is because you would take them to Chevy dealers, and you were under the impression that GMC vehicles were associated with Bendix brakes; is that correct?
A: Right.
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|