Product Liability -- 2016



Rost v. Ford Motor Co.   (Pennsylvania Supreme Court)

Challenging "any exposure" theory in asbestos case

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reverse a trial court judgment that allowed expert testimony on asbestos causation without requiring an assessment of the dose required to cause injury or identifying how much exposure occurred. The plaintiff, a maintenance worker doing non-asbestos work thirty feet from brake repair work involving asbestos, alleged that his proximity to the brake repair work was sufficient evidence of causation. His expert witness also testified that such proximity is sufficient to prove causation. The NAM’s amicus brief argued that experts should not be allowed to speculate that any exposure is enough to find liability and that the plaintiffs experts failed both steps of a causation assessment: identifying how much exposure occurred and citing to competent studies. Unfortunately, the court upheld the trial court’s judgment.