holding that “because the asbestos fibers brought in on each occasion remained in the home for a considerable period of time, the exposure was continuous and cumulative in effect”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “because the asbestos fibers brought in on each occasion remained in the home for a considerable period of time, the exposure was continuous and cumulative in effect”
- holding that by capping the total gross award in wrongful death actions, the legislature did not "create irrational classifications among the claimants"
- “A Frye/Reed analysis is required, as a prerequisite to the application of Rule 5–702, only when the proposed expert testimony involves a ‘novel scientific method,’ in which event there must be some assurance that the novel method has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BATTAGLIA, J.,
dissenting, which BELL, C.J., joins.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the excellent analysis and decision of the Court of Special Appeals, Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, 206 Md.App. 180 , 47 A.3d 1038 (2012).