California Court of Appeal

In an action alleging several causes of action for negligence and products liability arising out of plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and subsequent development of mesothelioma, judgment for plaintiff and the trial court's decision striking plaintiff's request for punitive damages under Michigan law, are: 1) affirmed in part, where the sophisticated user doctrine did not constitute a complete defense to plaintiffs' failure to warn claims because defendant failed to prove the risks of automotive asbestos exposure should have been known by mechanics in the 1960's and early 1970's, when plaintiff began his career; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages, where in applying California's "governmental interest" conflict of laws analysis, Michigan courts have no interest in seeing the application of their principle in the courts of California, which apply a contrary principle in allowing punitive damages.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/26/2014
• Published 03/26/2014

Judges

• MARGULIES

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel