Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York trial court held that summary judgment in a mesothelioma death case was not warranted where the parties’ experts disagree on the underlying scientific issues in the case.

For a one-year period in the 1950s, Frederick Lindberg worked as a boiler mechanic for Federal Oil Co., where he performed work on Columbia-brand boilers. He later developed mesothelioma, which led to his death. His estate sued Columbia Boiler and others, alleging that Lindberg’s exposure to asbestos through his work as a boiler mechanic resulted in his death. Columbia Boiler moved for summary judgment.

The court considered Lindberg’s testimony, which identified the defendant’s asbestos product as a source of his exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the court cited plaintiff expert reports from David Zhang, who concluded that chrysotile asbestos fibers are capable of causing cancer. The court also cited the defense expert reports of industrial hygienist Eric Rasmuson, who concluded that Lindberg’s exposure from Columbia’s boilers would have been low level and would not have placed him at an increased risk of developing mesothelioma.

Citing case law, the court concluded that the experts’ disagreement about the underlying science raises an issue of credibility that must be resolved by a jury, not through submitted papers. A plaintiff is not required to show the precise cause of damages, the court said, only the facts and conditions from which liability may be reasonably inferred.

Consequently, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Citation: Greene v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 2021 WL 2226427 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty. June 1, 2021).

Plaintiff counsel: Thomas Comerford, New York City.