same, in an asbestosis case
How later courts described this case
- same, in an asbestosis case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Moyer, C.J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the first, third, and fourth paragraphs of the syllabus and in the well-advised decision of the majority to reject the theory of alternative liability. I dissent from the majority opinion because it does not provide the bench and bar with a test that can consistently be applied in asbestos cases. I would adopt the “frequency-proximity” test adopted in the case of Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Coming Corp. (C.A.4, 1986), 782 F.2d 1156 . No persuasive argument has been given to persuade me that Ohio should not adopt the test applied in the majority of jurisdictions in the country that have considered the issue.
*689 For the foregoing reasons I would affirm the judgments of the court of appeals.