Durability + Design

Building Performance and Aesthetics

A Product of Technology Publishing
JPCL/PaintSquare | D+D | Paint BidTracker

Subscribe to D+D Magazine

Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page


TX Tosses $12.3M Asbestos Award

Thursday, August 7, 2014

More items for Good Technical Practice

Comment | More

The Texas Supreme Court has thrown out a $12.3 million jury verdict awarded to the family of a 40-year-old mesothelioma victim who had used an asbestos-containing joint compound as a teenager.

The 6-3 decision, issued July 11, upholds an appellate ruling that vacated the trial-court judgment against Georgia-Pacific Corp., the Atlanta-based global building products manufacturer.

The court found that the family of Timothy Bostic had not provided "legally sufficient evidence of causation" in claiming that Georgia-Pacific's compound was a “substantial factor” in his death in 2003.

Trial and Judgment

Bostic's family contended that he became ill after exposure to asbestos from a variety of sources, including the joint compound. Bostic used the product as a child and teenager helping his father on weekend drywall projects, the family said.

Drywall and joint compound
Wikimedia Commons / Amaxson

The family of Timothy Bostic sued 40 companies in all. The family said Bostic had been exposed to asbestos while using a Georgia-Pacific joint compound as a child and teenager, while doing drywall work with his father.

The case originally involved 40 defendants, but only Georgia-Pacific remained by the time of the Supreme Court review, having refused to settle over the years.

The case went to trial in 2006. The jury found Georgia-Pacific 75 percent responsible for Bostic's illness; Knox Glass Co., Bostic's former employer, was found 25 percent responsible.

Knox settled, leaving $6.8 million in compensatory damages and $4.8 million in punitive damages assessed against Georgia-Pacific.

Asbestos Precedent

In their ruling, the Bostic justices relied heavily on precedents set in Borg-Warner v. Flores, a 2007 case involving a brake mechanic who died of asbestosis. His family unsuccessfully sued the brake-pad manufacturer, contending liability because of occupational exposure to asbestos in the product.

However, the Flores record revealed "nothing about how much asbestos Flores might have inhaled," the Supreme Court ruled in that case.

Chrysotile asbestos
Wikimedia Commons / Aram Dulyan

Chrysotile asbestos accounts for most of the asbestos found in U.S. buildings. "Everyone is exposed to asbestos in the ambient air," a plaintiff's expert testified.

Flores found that "to establish causation in fact, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing the disease, and that mere proof that the plaintiff was exposed to 'some' respirable fibers traceable to the defendant was insufficient," the Bostic decision noted.

'Everyone is Exposed'

The Bostic family argued that the exposure threshold for mesothelioma claims should be lower than that for asbestosis claims, because mesothelioma may result from lower levels of exposure.

The court noted the exposure differences, but added, "[E]ven in mesothelioma cases, proof of 'some exposure' or 'any expsoure' alone will not suffice to establish causation."

With both illnesses, the court noted, "the likelihood of contracting the disease increases with the dose." That makes the exposure levels relevant, the court said.

Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Georgia-Pacific is a leading global maker of paper, building products and related chemicals.

"If any exposure at all were sufficient to cause mesothelioma, everyone would suffer from it or at least be at risk of contracting the disease," the court found.

It noted testimony by one of the plaintiff's experts that "everyone is exposed to asbestos in the ambient air," especially in urban areas.

Rejecting 'Any Exposure'

Finally, the court said, it had to reject the idea that "any exposure to asbestos is sufficient to establish liability."

If that were the case, the justices said, "the result essentially would be not just strict liability but absolute liability against any company whose asbestos-containing product crossed paths with the plaintiff throughout his entire lifetime."

"If an 'any exposure' theory of liability is accepted for mesothelioma cases because science has been unable to establish a dose below which the risk of disease disappears, the same theory would arguably apply to all carcinogens," the court ruled.

It added, quoting a 1989 ruling: “A fundamental principle of traditional products liability law is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendants supplied the product that caused the injury.”

   

Tagged categories: Asbestos; Building materials; Drywall; Georgia-Pacific; Health and safety; Laws and litigation

Comment from peter gibson, (8/7/2014, 5:08 PM)

Great news...the lead and asbestos racket finally exposed. Brake pads...one would have to hold your nose to the pad to ingest fibers. If you want to get free money; you better have a strong case.


Comment from Edward Kelly, (8/11/2014, 7:04 AM)

Peter Gibson is so wrong "...one would have to hold your nose to the pad to ingest fibers." Note: The very first order of business when doing a brake job was to use a blow off gun on each & every brake assembly area to get rid of all the accumulated brake dust! No masks, no respirators, and certainly no ventilation systems were used in the day!


Comment from M. Halliwell, (8/12/2014, 10:42 AM)

Peter, you can ingest all the asbestos you want (and in fact you do....it is a naturally occurring mineral and you eat and drink it regularly). The problem comes when you inhale it. The small mineral fibres, much like silica crystals, lodge in the lungs and cause havoc and lung disease. Asbestosis and silicosis are very similar, other than the "seed" that starts the process. Edward, you're bang on: blowing brake dust off for servicing was common practice and when asbestos was used in the pads...well...we won't see the end of these tragedies for a while.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Arroworthy
ArroWorthy's Handcrafted Professional Brushes

One Dip of paint with our handcrafted semi-oval Rembrandt brush, you'll see why ArroWorthy makes a professional brush of unrivaled quality and performance.


Dumond Chemicals Inc.
Watch Dog® Wipe Out
Porous Surface Graffiti Remover

is formulated to effectively and easily remove existing graffiti from porous/unpainted masonry surfaces 15-30 minutes without surface damage while being both safe for the applicator and friendly to the environment.


KTA-Tator, Inc. - Corporate Office
KTA Laboratory Services

Fully equipped lab to solve
the most challenging
coatings problems.
Contact:
Kevin Brown, 336-874-2651
Corporate:
1-800-245-6379 x208


Hanley Wood Exhibitions


DuPont Building Innovations
DuPont™ Tyvek® Fluid Applied WB System

The DuPont™ Tyvek® Fluid Applied System was put to the test at the new Texas A&M Liberal Arts and Humanities building Click to see the results.


 Allied Construction Technologies, Inc.
No Jackhammers Required.

AC•Tech’s OBS™ treatment rescues old oily, contaminated concrete slabs and allows new coatings or flooring to be installed with confidence. 10-year warranty.


Concrete Decor
2014 Concrete Decor Show

Learn valuable techniques and see the latest decorative concrete products at the 2014 Concrete Decor Show in Fort Worth, Texas, Sept. 29-Oct. 3. Register now!

 
 
 
Technology Publishing

The Technology Publishing Network

The Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) PaintSquare
Durability + Design Paint BidTracker JPCL Europe

 
EXPLORE D+D:      Interact   |   Blogs   |   Resources   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   White Papers   |   Classifieds
GET D+D:      Subscribe   |   Advertising Media Kit
KNOW D+D:      About D+D   |   Privacy policy   |   Terms & conditions   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us
 

© Copyright 2010-2014, Technology Publishing, Co., All rights reserved
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail webmaster@paintsquare.com