Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-13-2023
Case Style:
Glen E. King v. Anchor Darling Valve Company, et al.
Case Number: 2:21-cv-02006
Judge: Sarah S. Vance
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Orleans Parish)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Jennifer E. Adams, Amber Barlow Garica, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, William Claudy Harrison, Jr.
Description: New Orleans, Louisiana personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on product liability theories claiming that he suffered more than $75,000 in damages and/or injuries as a direct result of a defective and unreasonably dangerous product (asbestos) designed, manufactured and/or sold by Defendants.
This case arises from plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment with the United States Navy, Louisiana State University, and BASF Corporation.[2] Plaintiff contends that these exposures caused him to develop mesothelioma.[3] He sued Union Carbide, among others, for negligence in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.
Under Louisiana law, in an asbestos exposure case, the claimant must show that (1) “he had significant exposure to the product complained of,” and that (2) the exposure to the product “was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury.” Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065, 1091 (La. 2009) (quoting Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 726 So.2d 926, 948 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1998)). The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both elements. Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So.2d 930, 932 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004). When there are multiple causes of injury, “a defendant's conduct is a cause in fact if it is a substantial factor generating plaintiff's harm.” Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 923 So.2d 118, 122 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2005) (citing Vodanovich, 969 So.2d at 932). “Because there is a medically demonstrated causal relationship between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma, every non-trivial exposure to asbestos contributes to and constitutes a cause of mesothelioma.” Labarre v. Bienville Auto Parts, Inc., No. 21-89, 2022 WL 293250, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 2022) (citing McAskill v. Am. Marine Holding Co., 9 So.3d 264, 268 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009)). Thus, as the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[e]ven if the plaintiff was only exposed to asbestos for a ‘short period for an employer[,] and he had longer exposure working for others, it cannot be said the relatively short asbestos exposure was not a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.'” Williams v. Boeing Co., 23 F.4th 507, 512 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Rando, 16 So.3d at 1091).
Outcome: 02/13/2023 123 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - The Court having been advised by counsel that the parties have firmly agreed upon a compromise in this matter; IT IS ORDERED that this action be and it is hereby dismissed as to all parties, without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown, within sixty days, to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. In addition, the Court specifically retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if settlement is not consummated in sixty days. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 2/13/23.(cg) (Entered: 02/13/2023)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: