California Court of Appeal

In an asbestos-related mesiothelioma case, the jury verdict in favor of defendant, concluding that plaintiff was a sophisticated user of asbestos and therefore defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff of asbestos dangers, is reversed where the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, because substantial evidence fails to prove, as required for the sophisticated user defense, that by virtue of his position, training, experience, knowledge, or skill, plaintiff knew or should have known of the health risks posed by working with or near the asbestos-containing products he sold and which were used in defendant's boilers.

Appellate Information

• Published 2016/04/13

Judges

• WILLHITE

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel