While the court did not endorse “but-for” causation standard favored by the defense, it did rule against the ultra-accommodating position that “any exposure” to asbestos should result in liability even if far greater exposure came from a different source. The court instead hinged liability on whether a defendant’s product or activity was a “substantial factor,” which it defined “as one that more than doubles the risk of injury to the plaintiff.” [Deborah La Fetra, PLF]
One Comment
“The court explained that a less demanding standard for causation in mesothelioma cases would impose “absolute liability against any company whose asbestos-containing product crossed paths with the plaintiff throughout his entire lifetime.””
But, isn’t that the dream? Don’t we want to live in a world in which if anything ever goes wrong, anyone with money can be held responsible to the tune of billions of dollars? What’s wrong with these people?
Bob