(March 16, 2011) The California Chamber of Commerce and the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) are asking the California Court of Appeal to determine the causation standard to use for manufacturers of non-asbestos products in asbestos-related cases.

To address that question, CalChamber and CJAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case of Crull v. 3M Company with the 1st District California Court of Appeal on March 4.

There currently is a great deal of asbestos-related litigation in the courts against manufacturers whose products contain no asbestos and did not affect a plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos. 3M is one of those manufacturers.

This issue is of concern for the business community because of the cost and uncertainty litigation imposes on non-asbestos manufacturers. Instead of spending resources on litigation, companies could be investing in research and development as well as expanding and hiring new employees.

Background

Denton Crull worked for 26 years as a U.S. Navy boiler technician handling and being around asbestos-containing materials. As a result, he was regularly exposed to dusty asbestos conditions, often without any protection from inhaling the dust. During his tenure, Crull sometimes wore a 3M mask or respirator that was provided to him by the Navy.

In 2008, soon after Crull was diagnosed with mesothelioma from his prolonged inhalation of asbestos dust while working for the Navy, he and his wife, Joyce, filed a personal injury and loss of consortium action seeking damages from 53 defendants. One of the defendants was 3M.

Plaintiffs claimed these 3M products were “defective” and, as such, contributed to his contracting cancer by breathing asbestos dust. Neither the mask nor respirator was designed to protect against asbestos inhalation at the rate to which Crull was exposed.

Further, plaintiffs claimed these 3M products failed to warn consumers properly, despite the fact that the products were properly labeled and Crull admitted that he has no recollection of having ever read the packaging or warnings.

Because 3M did not cause any harm to Crull, it sought dismissal from the case and was granted it.

The case then proceeded to trial against the three remaining asbestos defendants. The jury returned a verdict apportioning the total responsibility for Crull’s injuries between the Navy (85 percent) and Crull (15 percent).

The plaintiffs did not appeal this judgment, but instead chose to appeal the order of nonsuit granted to 3M.

CalChamber Argument

In their friend-of-the-court brief, the CalChamber and CJAC said the trial court correctly found an absence of evidence showing any causation by 3M’s products or its conduct for plaintiffs’ injuries. The trial court’s ruling on causation grounds was entirely fitting and proper.

The CalChamber and CJAC pointed out:

• 3M Products Did Not Cause Plaintiffs' Harm Nor Were They Designed To. 3M products did not contain asbestos nor did they harm the plaintiff. Crull was already exposed to asbestos years before using 3M products. Further, the mask was not designed for nor claimed to protect against asbestos inhalation, and the respirator was not designed to protect against that level of asbestos exposure.
   
• Failure-to-Warn Claim Does Not Hold Up. In addition to the fact that the 3M products were labeled, Crull admitted that he has no recollection of having ever read the packaging or warnings.

To view the brief, click here.

Staff Contact: Erika Frank