The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for Exxon Mobil corporation in Stanley Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (No. 14-22-00756-CV), a premises liability case involving alleged exposure to olivine dust. The ruling highlights the importance of reliable expert testimony and strict adherence to procedural rules in toxic tort litigation.
There have been recent growing concerns regarding the inhalation of crystalline silica dust in the California stone countertop industry, with attempts by the California State Legislature to enact regulations improving the occupational safety of workers fabricating stone slab products.1, 2 As this proposed legislation has developed, multiple studies have been conducted regarding safety measures that can be implemented for stone fabrication workers. Notably, some of those studies have revealed that effective methods to reduce occupational exposure to silica dust during fabrication exist and are feasible to implement by employers. While the research in the California stone countertop industry is still ongoing, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) has found that combining engineering controls and safer work practices would help greatly reduce the risk of harmful exposure to respirable silica dust.3, 4 Employers following this combination suggested by NIOSH in 2024 should make it feasible to safely work with stone slab products in California.
In July, a proposed bill named the Silicosis Prevention Act was withdrawn from consideration in California. This proposed bill would have substantially affected the manufactured stone industry by banning dry fabrication activities, imposing licensing requirements for employers and workers, and implementing a public database for violations and other state enforcement actions. Even though this version of the proposed bill was withdrawn, further legislative efforts targeting the manufactured stone industry are anticipated in the future.
Last year, we highlighted Iowa’s groundbreaking law to end over-naming of defendants in asbestos and silica litigation. Now, just a year later, three more states have followed suit: North Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia. All three states enacted their own versions of legislation aiming to reduce and prevent the over-naming of defendants in asbestos cases. While all three of the bills share similarities, North Dakota’s bill is the most expansive of the three.