United States Sixth Circuit

In a tort action based on asbestos exposure, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where: 1) Defendants' products were not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's illness; and 2) Defendants had no reason to foresee Plaintiff's "bystander" asbestos exposure.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/27/2009
• Published 04/03/2009

Judges

• Before:  SILER and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges;  LUDINGTON, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Kenneth L. Sales, Sales, Tillman, Walbaum, Catlett & Satterley, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.  Gary J. Sergent, O'Hara, Ruberg, Taylor, Sloan & Sergent, Covington, Kentucky, James K. Vines, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C., Scott T. Dickens, Fultz, Maddox, Hovious & Dickens, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Kenneth L. Sales, Paul J. Kelley, Sales, Tillman, Walbaum, Catlett & Satterley, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.  Gary J. Sergent, Michael J. O'Hara, O'Hara, Ruberg, Taylor, Sloan & Sergent, Covington, Kentucky, James K. Vines, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C., Scott T. Dickens, Fultz, Maddox, Hovious & Dickens, Louisville, Kentucky, Eric M. Cavanaugh, Duke Energy Shared Services, Inc., Plainfield, Indiana, for Appellees.  Mark A. Behrens, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.