Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York trial court held that summary judgment for the defense was not warranted where a plaintiff identified the defendant as the manufacturer of floor tiles that allegedly led to his asbestos exposure.

In this products liability suit against multiple defendants, Paul Moutal alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos while working with defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. floor tiles. Moutal, who was diagnosed as having lung cancer, testified at his deposition that he had cut and installed Goodyear tiles, which created debris. Goodyear moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had not been exposed to asbestos from a Goodyear-brand floor tile. The defendant contended that the plaintiff could not establish that Goodyear’s floor tiles contained asbestos and that he had actually worked with Goodyear tiles.

Denying the motion, the trial court noted that the plaintiff testified that he had worked with Goodyear flooring tile as a handyman and that he recalled working with Goodyear tile as a teenager. Citing case law, the court said that it was not within its discretion to determine the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony and that the court’s role was to determine issues, not determine their outcome.

The court also found that the defendant had failed to offer evidence that the only floor tiles the plaintiff had been exposed to did not contain asbestos. The plaintiff has clearly testified that he had been exposed to asbestos from installing Goodyear tile, the court said, noting that the defendant thus had not met its prima facie burden of proving the plaintiff had not been exposed to asbestos from one of its products.

Consequently, the court held that summary judgment was not warranted.

Citation: Moutal v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., 2022 WL 17633022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Dec. 12, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: Alani Golanski, New York City.