|
4224 In an action for asbestos disease, plaintiff's discovery responses indicating that he was unable to identify any specific facts showing that he was exposed to asbestos particles released by defendant's equipment, or that it was present when he was aboard the ship on which he was allegedly exposed to asbestos, satisfied defendant's burden of showing there was no triable issue of fact regarding causation and, unless plaintiff was able to show that there was a triable issue, justified granting summary judgment for defendant; in rejecting expert testimony that defendant's equipment might have been on the ship sixteen years earlier and might have been serviced releasing asbestos particles that might have been re-entrained into the air when plaintiff subsequently was aboard, it was not impermissibly weighing the evidence but correctly concluding it was too speculative to be admissible.
ANDREWS v FOSTER WHEELER (Re-entrained Asbestos) 138 CA4 96 [See: Aguilar v ARCO 25 C4 826, P/AT 7/01; Scheiding v Dinwiddie 69 CA4 64, T/AT 2/99]
|
|