Lindstrom v. Product Liability Trust (2005)

Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005)).

Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Pressman v. Franklin Nat’l Bank, 384 F.3d 182, 185 (6th Cir. 2004)).

“The comments to the Restatement indicate[] that the word ‘substantial,’ in this context, ‘denote[s] the fact that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause, using that word in the popular sense, in which there always lurks the idea of responsibility.’” /d. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431 cmt. a (1965)). 5 However, “substantial exposure is necessary to draw an inference from circumstantial …

Pa. May 15, 2012) (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 (“[A] mere showing that defendant’s product was present somewhere at plaintiff’s place of work is insufficient.”).

See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 (“[A] mere showing that defendant’s product was present somewhere at plaintiff’s place of work is insufficient.”).

See, e.g., 5 Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 (“a mere showing that defendant’s product was present 6 somewhere at plaintiff’s place of work is insufficient.”).

Likewise, a... showing that defendant’s product was present somewhere at plaintiff's place of work is insufficient.” Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005)).3 Atwood argues that Plaintiff provides no evidence that he was exposed to asbestos from gaskets or packing from an Atwood valve.

Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 493 (expert testimony that “every exposure to asbestos, however slight” could cause mesothelioma could not satisfy the substantial factor test as a matter of law).

“Rather, the plaintiff must show ‘a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.’” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492), “Total failure to show that the defect caused or contributed to the accident will foreclose as a matter of law a finding of strict product[] liability.” Stark, 21 F. App’x at 376 (citations omitted).

Under both bodies of law, a defendant in asbestos 21 cases “may be held liable only for [a plaintiff’s] exposure to asbestos-containing products that 22 were either manufactured or supplied by them.” Boyd v. Warren Pumps, LLC, 654 F. App’x 875 , 23 876 (9th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (citing O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal. 4th 335 (2012) and 24 Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). 25 Our circuit has found little conflict between federal maritime law and state law in 26 circumstances akin…

Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Air and Liquid Sys.

“Rather, the plaintiff must show ‘a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.’” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

“Rather, the plaintiff must show ‘a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.’” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

Instead, the plaintiff must show “a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Air and Liquid Sys.

Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005) (applying maritime law); see also Dumas v. ABB Grp., Inc., 2015 WL 5766460 , at *8 (D.

“Minimal exposure” is insufficient as is “a mere showing that defendant’s product was present somewhere at plaintiff’s place of work.” Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492.

“Absent direct evidence of causation, a party may satisfy the substantial- 18 factor test by demonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the 19 relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.” Id. (citing Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492); 20 see also Menne v. Celotex Corp., 861 F.2d 1453, 1462 (10th Cir. 1988) (“More 21 significant under traditional causation tests than the question of mere exposure to 22 [asbestos-containing] products is whether the exp…

Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492.

The evidence must show “a high enough 25 level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.’S 1 than conjectural.” Id. at 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than 2 simply placing a defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was 3 occasionally exposed to asbestos dust from those products.

The evidence must show “a high enough 26 27 ORDER GRANTING CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.’S 1 level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more 2 than conjectural.” Id. at 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than 3 simply placing a defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was 4 occasionally exposed to asbestos dust from those products.

The evidence must show “a high enough 23 level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more 24 than conjectural.” Id. at 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than 25 simply placing a defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was 26 27 ORDER GRANTING WARREN PUMPS, LLC’S 1 occasionally exposed to asbestos dust from those products.

“Rather, the plaintiff must show ‘a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.’” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

Instead, the plaintiff must show “a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

Instead, the plaintiff must show “a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

Tr., 424 F.3d 488 , 18 492 (6th Cir. 2005) (“Plaintiffs in products liability cases under maritime law may proceed under 19 20 both negligence and strict liability theories.

Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 (“a mere showing that defendant’s product was present somewhere at plaintiff’s place of work is insufficient”).

“Absent direct evidence of 7 causation, a party may satisfy the substantial-factor test by demonstrating that the injured 8 person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.” 9 Id. (citing Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492); see also Menne v. Celotex Corp., 861 F.2d 1453 , 10 1462 (10th Cir. 1988) (“More significant under traditional causation tests than the 11 question of mere exposure to [asbestos-containing] products is whether the exposu…

Trust, 424 F.3d 488 , 493 (6th Cir. 2005) (“The requirement ... is that the plaintiff make a showing with respect to each defendant that the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in plaintiffs injury.”).

Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Air and Liquid Sys.

However, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that, under maritime law, a plaintiff must show “for each defendant, that (1) he was exposed to the defendant’s product, and (2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered.” Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Air & Liquid Sys.

Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492; Wilson, 2015 WL 7313391 at *3. “[A] mere showing that the defendant’s product existed at a plaintiff’s workplace” is insufficient under the standard.

The evidence must show “a high enough level of exposure that an 2 inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” Id. at 3 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than simply placing a 4 defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was occasionally exposed 5 to asbestos dust from those products.

The evidence must show “a high enough level of exposure that an 24 inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” Id. at 25 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than simply placing a 26 27 ORDER GRANTING THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY’S AMENDED 1 defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was occasionally exposed 2 to asbestos dust from those products.

The evidence must show “a high enough level of exposure 4 that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.” 5 Id. at 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than simply placing a 6 7 defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was occasionally exposed 8 to asbestos dust from those products.

The evidence must show “a high enough level 2 of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than 3 conjectural.” Id. at 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than simply 4 placing a defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was occasionally 5 exposed to asbestos dust from those products.

The evidence must show “a high enough level 6 7 of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than 8 conjectural.” Id. at 1176 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492). “[M]ore is needed” than simply 9 placing a defendant’s products in the workplace and showing that the decedent was occasionally 10 exposed to asbestos dust from those products.

Pa. Feb. 29, 2012) (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

“Rather, the plaintiff must show ‘a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.’” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

Spirax 149 Id. at 991 . 150 Id. 151 Id. at 994 (citing Lindstrom v. A-C product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005)). 152 Id. at 993-94. 153 Id. at 996.

Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (4th Cir.2005).

The comments to the Restatement indicate that the word “substantial,” in this context, “denote[s] the fact that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause, using that word in the popular sense, in which there always lurks the idea of responsibility.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 431 cmt. a (1965). 7 However, “‘substantial exposure is necessary to draw an inference from circumstantial evidence that the…

However, “‘substantial exposure is necessary to draw an inference from circumstantial evidence that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the injury.’” Stark, 21 F. App’x at 376 (emphasis in original) (quoting Harbour v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 1991 WL 65201, at *4 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 1991)). 10 that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.’” Abbay, 2012 WL 975837 , at *1 n.1 (quoting Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492).

Regarding 5 Cabasug, Yaw’s statement is at least misleading because Yaw “must show, ‘for each 6 defendant, that (1) [Mr. Yaw] was exposed to the defendant’s product, and (2) the 7 product was a substantial factor in causing the injury [Mr. Yaw] suffered.’” Cabasug, 8 989 F. Supp. 2d at 1033 (quoting Lindstrom v. A–C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 9 (6th Cir. 2005)).

Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). 2 Plaintiffs use Mr. Walsh’s general testimony about the replacement parts as evidence that Mr. Walsh worked with asbestos products manufactured by Defendant.

Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). 2 witness in this case, and he was unable to recall the maintenance history, how often he worked with Aurora pumps, or whether the pumps were freshwater or saltwater pumps.

Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[A]m-phiboles can be up to 100 to 500 times more' potent than chrysotile in, causing mesothelioma.”).

See id. (“Plaintiffs in products liability cases under maritime law may proceed under both negligence and strict liability theories.