New York’s Supreme Court, First Department affirms trial court decision based on plaintiff’s failure to prove causation in asbestos litigation.

The plaintiff sued the defendant-manufacturer of vinyl floor tile and sheet vinyl flooring that contained asbestos. The plaintiff’s decedent ultimately succumbed to lung cancer two years after his diagnosis. The complaint alleged that the decedent was exposed to the defendant’s products, which caused him to develop lung cancer. Prior to his death, the decedent testified that he worked close to flooring installers who were placing the asbestos-containing tiles and flooring and inhaled the resulting dust.

In order to prove causation in asbestos exposure cases, the plaintiff must present evidence of exposure, evidence that the alleged asbestos-containing material can cause the alleged illness—general causation—and evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxic material to cause the illness—specific causation. Further, to establish specific causation, the plaintiff must have been exposed to an amount of the toxic material that is known to cause the resulting harm. Since it is not always possible to quantify the level of exposure, a plaintiff’s expert may use other methods to establish causation as long as those methods are generally accepted in the scientific community.

In this case, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not establish specific causation. The defendant attached an expert report that indicated the plaintiff’s decedent was not exposed to sufficient levels of asbestos from its products to cause his lung cancer. The plaintiff’s response did not provide expert evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact to overcome a grant in favor of summary judgment. The First Department agreed with the trial court’s decision and the decision in favor of the defendant’s motion was sustained.

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}