Mechanic can sue Ford for further damages in asbestos case

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a former Bay Area service station owner to seek additional damages from Ford Motor Co. for exposing him to brake-lining asbestos that has afflicted him with terminal cancer. A jury awarded Patrick Scott $1.5 million in damages and legal costs against Ford in November 2012. Wednesday's order allows him to ask another jury for punitive damages. Scott and his wife, Sharon, have settled claims against other automakers for undisclosed amounts. Scott worked in a Navy shipyard, where he was also exposed to asbestos, before opening his first service station in Sausalito in 1965. He leased an Atlantic Richfield station in San Francisco in 1970, then moved his business to a Beacon station in St. Helena in 1977. He stopped working in 2011 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable form of lung cancer that is caused by asbestos but typically does not show up until decades after exposure. Asbestos has long been used in the linings of motor vehicle brakes and clutches and is still used in brake pads, though it is banned in some other products. Scientists had established its connection to cancer by the mid-1950s, but the federal government did not regulate workplace asbestos exposure until 1971. According to court records, Ford mentioned asbestos in one of its publications in 1975 but did not put warnings on brake cartons until at least 1980. A Ford internal investigation cited by Scott's lawyers found mesothelioma among company...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Asbestos Disease Remains a Problem Despite Lower Consumption in the US
• Cancer victims win $190 million in asbestos case
• Deadly Asbestos Exposure Threat Left by Hurricane Sandy
• Corporate Conspiracy: Has Anything Really Changed?
• National Asbestos Awareness Week - April 1 to 7 2012
• $2 Million Verdict to Plastic Compounder Suffering Mesothelioma - Call For Asbestos Ban

Judge again asks sides to settle in Calif. lead paint case

Lead paint litigation is facing a sentinel decision that will set the direction for the future of environmental and occupation litigation. Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg on Monday ended proceedings in a 13-year-old case against paint companies by admonishing both sides, again, to settle. Kleinberg made his remarks after closing arguments in The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et. al., which seeks to hold five defendant paint companies liable for an alleged lead paint public nuisance in 10 county and municipal jurisdictions in the state. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence,” Kleinberg said, quoting John Adams who defended British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial of 1770. Kleinberg also recalled a one-word response made by a judge in a civil case he tried as a lawyer. The judge, he said, asked the plaintiff’s lawyer how his clients felt about their prospects, to which the lawyer responded “Very confident.” “Why,” asked the judge. Kleinberg said the case settled a few days later. Saying it is “never too late to settle,” Kleinberg encouraged the sides to bring an end to the litigation that has spanned more than a decade and could put the defendants – Atlantic Richfield Co., ConAgra, DuPont, NL Industries and Sherwin Williams – on the hook for more than $1.4 billion to abate lead paint in pre 1978-built homes. Kleinberg said it takes He said it...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs in Calif. lead paint case say companies' witnesses were 'not persuasive' (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert in lead paint trial says industry took responsibility for public health (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Closing arguments in Calif. lead paint trial take place Monday

Lead poisoning and lead expose is widespread. A vast number of cases of lead exposure flow from the lead pigment that was placed by the paint industry into paint. The residuals of the lead paint remain in place in many public and private buildings exposing both workers' and children to lead exposure and  the resulting lead disease. Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

In the high stakes lead paint public nuisance case culminating in Santa Clara County Superior Court, both sides will make closing arguments Monday before Judge James Kleinberg. The 10 city and county plaintiffs — Santa Clara County, San Francisco City, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Monterey County, Oakland City, San Diego City, San Mateo County, Solano County and Ventura County — are expected to argue they have met a burden of proving their case by a preponderance of evidence. Among other things, a team of attorneys for the plaintiffs will argue that the five defendant companies knew or should have known about the hazards created by the use of lead paint in homes, but promoted it anyway. They seek abatement in approximately 500,000 pre-1978 built homes in the jurisdictions and estimate the cost at $1.6 billion for inspection and abatement if the public entities implement the program. Plaintiffs say it would cost $2.4 billion if implemented by the defendants. Their plan calls for the creation of a fund administered by the public entities. Defendant companies — Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries, ConAgra Grocery Products, DuPont and Atlantic Richfield Company — are expected to fiercely defend their position, saying plaintiffs did not meet a necessary test set forth by the state’s Sixth District Court of Appeal. The paint companies will argue that the Sixth District allowed the 13-year-old case...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Related articles

• Plaintiffs in Calif. lead paint case say companies' witnesses were 'not persuasive' (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Sides rest in Calif. lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert in lead paint trial says industry took responsibility for public health (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Calif. judge denies Sherwin Williams motion in lead paint trial (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Plaintiffs' expert says lead paint abatement could cost $1.4 billion (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Lead paint manufacturers facing California challenge (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Found on

Plaintiffs in Calif. lead paint case say companies’ witnesses were ‘not persuasive’

The lead paint industry has not yet come to the table to settle the public health nightmare of lead pigment in paint. Soon California may change the economics of the problem. Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

SAN JOSE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) — The plaintiffs in a six-week trial over lead paint — 10 cities and counties in California — argue that the one-time paint and pigment manufacturers they’re suing have not presented a “persuasive” case. The cities and counties — Santa Clara County, San Francisco City, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Monterey County, Oakland City, San Diego City, San Mateo County, Solano County and Ventura County — filed their 52-page statement of decision with the Santa Clara County Superior Court Friday. Friday was the deadline for all parties in the lead paint trial, which wrapped up last month, to submit their proposed statements of decision, as requested by Judge James Kleinberg. Kleinberg is presiding over The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al. Kleinberg In their statement of decision, the plaintiffs argue that their witnesses were “credible,” and that the defendants’ witnesses — which refuted evidence offered by the cities and counties — were “not persuasive.” “Defendants contend that ‘intact’ lead paint does not present a hazard. The Court finds that the evidence demonstrates otherwise,” the plaintiffs wrote in their statement and proposed order. “Lead paint on high friction surfaces presents an immediate hazard, even if it is presently intact, because normal use causes the paint to degrade, exposing young...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Lots of data to process for Calif. lead paint judge

Lead exposure in the workplace continues due to decaying lead based paint in place. The complications of this environmental hazard are serious. Attention is now focussed on the Court's anticipated decision in the Lead Paint Litigation trial flowing from lead paint as a "public nuisance" that needs remediation.  Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

Judge Kleinberg A watershed decision expected before the end of the year may come down to how one individual processes volumes of complex analyses of complex data relating to the use, promotion and manufacture of lead paint in the last century and its impact on children today. In a case that took six weeks to try after 13 years of litigation, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg also will measure the credibility of expert witnesses and their theories in The People of California v. Atlantic Richfield, et al. Not only do the plaintiffs have to prove that a public nuisance exists in pre-1978 built private residences in the 10 California cities or counties seeking abatement costs of more than $1 billion, they have to prove that paint companies promoted the use of white lead pigments in residential paint during the first half of the last century knowing it would create today’s alleged public nuisance.