Products Liability Law Reporter

Jimmy Thomas worked as a mechanic from 1967 to 2008. During his career, he worked with automotive solvents and paint products that contained benzene. When he was 68 years old, he was diagnosed as having myelodysplastic syndrome, a form of blood cancer, which necessitated that he undergo chemotherapy.

He sued various undisclosed manufacturers and suppliers of the benzene-containing products to which he was exposed, alleging defective design and failure to warn.

Before his death, Thomas and the defendants settled for $6.37 million. The defendants’ contributions are also confidential.

Citation: Thomas v. Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc., No. RG17882514 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty. June 28, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Andrew J. DuPont, Philadelphia; AAJ member Jennifer Emmons, Cherry Hill, N.J; AAJ member Rajeev Mittal, El Segundo, Calif.; and AAJ member Jonathan George, Dallas.

Comment: In Walsh v. BASF Corp., 191 A.3d 838 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018), Thomas Walsh, who was employed as a groundskeeper and golf course superintendent for approximately 40 years, was diagnosed as having acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), a condition from which he later died. His estate sued various pesticide manufacturers, alleging strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. After the trial court ruled that Frye barred the plaintiff’s experts from testifying as to causation—including one expert’s view that Walsh’s AML resulted from benzene exposure—the parties stipulated to an order granting summary judgment. The estate appealed. Vacating and remanding, the appellate court noted that an expert’s opinion will satisfy Frye when it is based on generally accepted scientific principles and supported by studies or literature. The court added that an expert’s ability to conclude with reasonable certainty that exposure to a defective product substantially caused a party’s injuries relates to the legal sufficiency of the expert testimony, not to whether the underlying science is generally accepted. Thus, the court held that the plaintiff’s experts were not barred from testifying under the Frye test. AAJ member Michael J. D’Amico, Pittsburgh, represented the plaintiff.