Lovelace

Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 25, 2014C072371California3,375 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

James’s In Limine Motion Based on Campbell v. Ford Motor Company Issued on May 21, 2012, Campbell, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 15, held for the first time in California that a property owner has no legal duty to protect family members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos brought home on employees’ clothes. (Id. at p. 29.) On May 23, 2012, the trial court heard an in limine motion by James to apply the holding of Campbell. James’s counsel argued Campbell precluded placing Johns-Manville onto the special verdict form. The trial court took the matter under submission. James’s Evidence Regarding Abex Products At trial, Dr. Barry Horn testified as an expert on asbestos-related illnesses. He explained James contracted pleural mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos-containing products. James testified that between 1950 and 1980 he was exposed to asbestos- containing products made by manufacturers that included Abex, Raybestos, and Bendix. Specifically as to Abex, James adjusted numerous brakes made by Abex. James breathed the dust from Abex products because he compressed air to blow the asbestos dust off the brake drums when adjusting the brakes. At…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.