On September 5, 2018, the Appellate Court for the Fourth District of Illinois introduced heightened standards for plaintiffs to establish duty and causation in asbestos litigation through its reversal of a McLean County trial court’s decision denying a defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. McKinney v. Hobart Bros. Co., 2018 IL App (4th) 170333, appeal denied, 116 N.E.3d 948 (Ill. 2019). In McKinney, the plaintiff sued Defendant Hobart Brothers Company (“Hobart”) alleging his eight-month workplace exposure to Hobart’s asbestos-containing welding rods in 1962 and 1963 caused his mesothelioma. The welding rods at issue allegedly contained asbestos fibers that were encapsulated. The plaintiff also alleged exposure to asbestos-containing automotive products that occurred during the course of his forty-year mechanic career. In reversing the trial judgment, the McKinney Court addressed three issues of expert testimony admissibility under Rule 213 and ultimately tightened the reins on exposure claims involving encapsulated asbestos fibers by requiring industry knowledge of harm for the manufacturer’s product at issue before imposing a duty and ushering in the “substantial factor” test for causation.
Continue Reading Toxic Tort Monitor: A “Substantial Factor” in Bringing About Change? Illinois’ McKinney Appellate Decision Raises Plaintiff Burdens for Duty and Causation
duty to warn
Product Liability Monitor – October 11, 2017
October 11, 2017 |
New Developments |
America’s Opioid Epidemic: Who Will Be Held Accountable? By Ally Schwab In recent years America has seen an increasing number of opioid-involved deaths and is currently experiencing what the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) describes as an “opioid epidemic.” This crisis has been devastating to many communities and individuals, and |
…
Product Liability Monitor – December 13, 2016
December 13, 2016 |
New Developments |
Auto Manufacturers Partner with Nauto to Improve Driverless Car Technology By Shannon Peters One of the main obstacles to the autonomous vehicle industry is “infrastructure,” but not in the sense typically associated with the term. Since autonomous vehicles come in all shapes, sizes, and powertrain types (gasoline, electric, and hybrid), |
…
Product Liability Monitor – October 7, 2016
October 7, 2016 |
New Developments |
The Duty to Warn in New York By Dan Jaffe New York’s highest court recently held in two asbestos cases (Dummit v. A. W. Chesterton and Suttner v. A. W. Chesterton) that a manufacturer of valves had a duty to warn of the hazards arising from the use of its |
…
Toxic Tort Monitor – October 5, 2016
October 5, 2016 |
New Developments |
Illinois Supreme Court finds Six Person Jury Demand Unconstitutional By Jen Dlugosz On June 1, 2015, Public Act 1132 (the “Act”) became effective. The Act reduced the size of civil juries in Illinois to 6 persons from 12 persons, thus litigants demanding a jury after June 1, 2015 could no |
…
Toxic Tort Monitor – August 3, 2016
August 3, 2016 |
New Developments |
Northern District of Illinois Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration in Take-Home Exposure Case By Jen Dlugosz In May 2016, we reported the Northern District of Illinois’ decision in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016). Following that ruling, plaintiff moved for |
…
Toxic Tort Monitor – May 2, 2016
May 2, 2016 |
New Developments |
Northern District of Illinois Decision on Take-Home Exposure Liability has Limited Application By Lindsay McClure-Hartman The Northern District of Illinois in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016), recently granted a motion to dismiss on the basis that a product manufacturer |
…
California Appellate Court Affirms Limits on Liability for Compatible Products
California courts have forged a shield for product manufacturers faced with liability stemming from the foreseeable but unintended use of their product in conjunction with another manufacturer’s product. Consistent with a recent decision by the California Supreme Court, a California appellate court concluded that a manufacturer is generally not liable in strict liability or negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product, despite the fact that the two products are compatible to be used together.
Continue Reading California Appellate Court Affirms Limits on Liability for Compatible Products
Are Aircraft Sellers Liable in Tort for Failure to Train?
In December 2002, Gary Prokup, a 200-hour, non-instrument rated private pilot, purchased a new SR22 aircraft from Cirrus, the manufacturer. Included with the price of the aircraft, Cirrus offered a new owner transition training program, an obligation which Cirrus subcontracted to the University of North Dakota Flight Foundation (UNDAF). Prokup registered for and took the training.
Continue Reading Are Aircraft Sellers Liable in Tort for Failure to Train?