In an asbestos exposure case, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a plaintiff who had been exposed to multiple asbestos products, only one of which had been made by the defendant, but did not provide any testimony regarding the level of exposure to that product, nonetheless satisfied the court’s requirement that the defendant’s product was a “substantial” factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury.
The NAM joined with seven other groups in an amicus letter urging the California Supreme Court to review this decision. We argued that the lower court permitted liability to be imposed based on speculative testimony regarding specific causation that failed to meet the basic standard established by the California Supreme Court in Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., which requires courts to distinguish between products to which a plaintiff was incidentally exposed and those products to which a plaintiff’s exposure was significant enough to be considered a “substantial” factor in causing the harm.
Additionally, we argued that the flimsy causation standard permitted by the California Court of Appeal has been rejected by other states’ courts that are experienced in asbestos litigation. In fact, one of the reasons why California has become a magnet for asbestos cases is because its state courts have lowered its specific causation standard.
On Oct. 28, the court denied review of this case.