affirming summary judgment when evidence showed that the plaintiff was exposed to an asbestos cloth, but the plaintiff could not identify the brand and there were multiple suppliers
How later courts described this case
- affirming summary judgment when evidence showed that the plaintiff was exposed to an asbestos cloth, but the plaintiff could not identify the brand and there were multiple suppliers
- affirming entry of summary judgment against plaintiffs where evidence adduced in discovery failed to demonstrate proximity, frequency and identity of products to which plaintiffs were exposed
- “[W]ithout more facts, it is not reasonable for the trial court to infer that these products must have contained asbestos because they were heat resistant.”
- summary judgment in favor of manufacturers was proper where the “only evidence offered ... to establish that the products at issue contained asbestos [were] affidavits stating that the products were resistant to high temperatures and/or other tradesmen stated they were asbestos ... ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in all but two provisions of the majority’s thorough and well-reasoned Opinion. The first statement in which I do not join appears in footnote 6 (majority op. at 360), where the majority, after noting that “we do not follow the trial *363 courts’ apparent rulings” concerning the admissibility of the testimony of tradesmen, proceeds to enumerate the circumstances under which “we would find the evidence sufficient____” The second statement is the observation that while Owens-Corning’s claim for attorney’s fees has been prematurely raised, “we would be disinclined to grant an award for attorney’s fees or costs against appellants” (majority op. at 362). As we are not required to resolve either of these issues at this point, I would postpone their resolution until such time as they are properly before this Court.