Products Liability Law Reporter

During Ronald Burlie Thomas’s career as a brake repair mechanic in the 1970s and early 1980s, he used automotive brakes containing asbestos. When he was 71 years old, he was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. Despite chemotherapy—which led to adverse side effects—he died of his disease the following year. Thomas, who incurred medical expenses totaling approximately $342,000, is survived by his three adult children.

Thomas’s son sued Honeywell International Inc., alleging that brake manufacturer Bendix Corp.—which merged with Allied Corp., which later merged with Honeywell—failed to warn of asbestos hazards associated with handling the brakes.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $18 million, including $10 million in punitive damages. It apportioned liability at 18.75 percent to Honeywell, 5 percent to Thomas, and the remainder to nonparties.

Citation: Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., No. 4:17-cv-00522 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 29, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: Benjamin Braly and Mark Bruha, both of Dallas; and AAJ member George Wise Jr., Little Rock, Ark.

Plaintiff expert: Arnold Brody, asbestos exposure, Raleigh, N.C.; and Edwin Holstein, asbestos exposure and causation, Boston.

Comment: See also Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 2019 WL 1199448 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 2019). There, suit alleged that Rudie Klopman-Baerselman was exposed to asbestos, in part, while working as a professional auto mechanic. His estate alleged that O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., was strictly liable for exposing him to asbestos-containing products, including Bendix brakes, and failing to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of asbestos. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a retail seller, it is immune from liability under Wash. Rev. Code §7.72.040, which applies to all claims arising on or after July 26, 1981. Finding that Klopman-Baerselman may have purchased asbestos-containing products as early as 1980, the court concluded that because the plaintiff has offered specific facts supported by deposition that contradict facts the defense offered, a genuine dispute exists, requiring a jury’s resolution. Consequently, the district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. AAJ members Alexandra B. Caggiano, Benjamin R. Couture, and Brian Weinstein, all of Seattle; and Benjamin Adams, Dallas, represented the plaintiff.

For a case brought by a laborer who alleged exposure to asbestos while changing brakes, clutches, and gaskets on a defendant manufacturer’s forklifts led to his lung cancer, see Corazza v. Amchem Products, Inc., 2019 WL 1387270 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 28, 2019). There, after the plaintiff was awarded damages against Caterpillar, Inc., an appellate court reversed. The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish a scientific basis for a finding of causation attributable to the defendant’s product. The court noted that although the laborer had testified that he had been exposed to asbestos while working on forklifts manufactured by the defendant and others, as to Caterpillar, he testified only that he had worked on its forklifts “a lot.” Because the plaintiff had offered no other basis for determining the frequency of his exposure to asbestos through his work on the defendant’s product, the court found, the plaintiff’s experts had an insufficient foundation for their opinions.