Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York trial court held that summary judgment for a defendant in a talcum powder products liability suit was not warranted.

Lita Goldstein sued multiple defendants, alleging liability for asbestos-contaminated talcum powder. One of the defendants, Kolmar Laboratories, Inc., moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she was exposed to any asbestos-containing product it manufactured. The defendant also asserted any product at issue was manufactured per the specifications of Johnson & Johnson, thus precluding its liability.

Denying the motion, the trial court found that summary judgment is a drastic measure and should be granted only if the moving party has sufficiently established it is warranted as a matter of law. Moreover, the court said, summary judgment should be denied where the opposing party presents admissible evidence establishing that a genuine issue of fact remains.

Applying these principles, the trial court reasoned that the defendant’s summary judgment arguments focus entirely on the plaintiff’s evidence but fail to establish that its products could not have contributed to the plaintiff’s injury despite confirming that it was a manufacturer of the product at issue during the period of the plaintiff’s exposure.

Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant had failed to meet its initial burden for summary judgment.

Citation: Goldstein v. Chanel, Inc., 2024 WL 3759847 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cnty. Aug. 9, 2024).