Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that an engineering subcontractor was not liable to a man who developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos dust while working at a Lockheed shipyard and other places.

Ronald Behrmann worked on ships for almost 30 years, including at Lockheed shipyards. He was exposed to asbestos from the products he worked on directly and also from employees working on nearby products. After developing mesothelioma, Behrmann sued Propulsion Controls Engineering (PCE), which provided engineering subcontractors to Lockheed, alleging products liability, negligence, and premises liability claims and asserting that the defendant was legally responsible for exposing him to asbestos dust. The defense moved for summary judgment.

Granting the motion, the district court found that the defense is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s products liability claims because the plaintiff did not offer any evidence that the defendant had manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. Turning to the plaintiff’s negligence claim, the court found that to prove his claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty not to expose him to asbestos fibers, breached this duty, and that this led to the plaintiff’s injury. Here, the court found, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the defendant had breached a duty or, if it had, that this led to the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. The fact that the defendant’s employees had worked on asbestos-containing products in the plaintiff’s vicinity does not alone create a genuine issue of material fact regarding negligence, the court said.

Finally, the court held that the defense is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s premises liability and loss of consortium claims, finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a consortium claim on his own behalf.

Citation: Behrmann v. ABB, Inc., 2021 WL 871374 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2021).