Defense Verdict in Asbestos Trial
On November 19, 2009 partner Stephen M. Nichols and trial attorney Thomas G. Scully obtained a defense verdict on behalf of WFB&M’s client, a manufacturer of construction-related materials, in the case of Buccola v. A-1 Enterprises, Inc., et al.
This case involved some particularly precarious facts. Mr. Buccola, a 77-year-old former owner of a landscape grading company, claimed direct and bystander exposure to chrystotile asbestos over a twelve year period from 1960-1972. Mr. Buccola, who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma, had established several very successful businesses in his lifetime and still earned a significant income. His wife was also a plaintiff and brought a claim for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs claimed in excess of $7 million dollars in economic loss. Additionally, there was no clear amphibole exposure.
After only one hour of deliberations, the jury found in favor of the defendants on both the strict liability consumer expectation and failure to warn causes of action. They unanimously concluded that defendants' products did not fail to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected, and voted 10-2 that defendants’ products did not fail to warn of potential risks that were known or knowable at the time.
The case was venued in Los Angeles Superior Court and was tried before Judge Helen I. Bendix. The firm of Paul Hanley represented plaintiffs.
Asbestos Litigation
Thomas G. Scully and Elizabeth L. Huynh of the Orange office obtained summary judgment for one of the firm's clients, an equipment manufacturer. This was a wrongful death action in which plaintiffs claimed that the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing materials alleged to be found on the client's product when he served in the U.S. Navy. Plaintiffs had Naval Archives documents that showed that the client manufactured the product. Mr. Scully and Ms. Huynh garnered a favorable ruling for the client by showing the court through written and oral argument that plaintiffs produced nothing but manufactured and manipulated evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The court agreed and granted summary judgment to the client based on the fact that there was no credible evidence that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the client's product.
Toxic Tort Litigation
Karen M. Sullivan and Stephanie J. Rothberg of the Orange office recently had a motion for summary judgment granted for the firm's manufacturing client in a personal injury benzene case filed in Los Angeles, California by The Metzger Law Group. Plaintiff alleged that he developed myelodysplastic syndrome as a result of his occupational exposure to various chemicals products manufactured, distributed or supplied by a number defendants while employed as a laborer at a manufacturing plant in Los Angeles. The basis of the motion was that although there was evidence of the client's product at the facility being used by other employees, plaintiff nor any of the witnesses had no knowledge of plaintiff working with or around the client's product. In opposition, plaintiffs argued that there was circumstantial evidence that would lead to the inference that plaintiff actually used the product to perform specific tasks based on the use of the product by other employees and since plaintiff recalled using this type of product. At the hearing on the motion, the Court found that it was mere speculation as to whether plaintiff was exposed to the products and thus the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to raise a reasonable inference that plaintiff worked with or around the client’s products and granted the motion. Of the six motions for summary judgment filed in this case, this is the only motion plaintiffs opposed.
back to top | Volume 9, Issue 1 Index
