The advocacy of Brayton Purcell, L.L.P lawyers is not limited to the trial courts. We also promote the public good by championing a variety of consumer and worker issues in appeals courts.
Selected reported and unpublished appellate opinions are listed below for 2022. 2021, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008, 2000–2002, 1999, and 1998, For a list of our trials, see Court Successes.
2022
Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five
77 Cal. App. 5th 895
The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs could not invoke CCP § 474 because they knew or should have known facts establishing a cause of action against Defendant’s when they first filed their complaint, and their action was thus untimely. The Court of Appeal reversed because that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard. The standard is actual knowledge, and not whether they should have known.
2021
Benavidez v. Fluor corp.
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
Unpublished
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial Court’s decision granting a motion for summary judgement. The plaintiff's deposition testimony created triable issues of material fact regarding his alleged exposure to asbestos attributable to the defendant Fluor Corporation.
2018
Crim v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division two
The Court of Appeal issued a writ to the trial court commanding it to vacate its order denying Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference and enter a new order granting Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference.
Fox v. Superior Court
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four
21 Cal app 5th 529
The Court of Appeal issued writ to the trial court, commanding it to vacate its order denying Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference and enter a new order granting Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference. Trial preference under CCP Section 36(a) is mandatory, there is no weighing of interests.
2017
Williams (“Dortch”) v. CBS Corp.
Oregon Court of Appeals
286 Ore. App. 1, 4
In an wrongful death asbestos action by a decedent’s (a shipyard workers) personal representative, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant, as there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding liability; defendant's argument was that it transferred any liability related to the decedent's alleged injuries to its subsidiary, but it had to demonstrate that it transferred the specific tort liability at issue, and the uncontroverted evidence presented by defendant did not establish that all reasonable factfinders would have to find in defendant's favor, especially where there was no direct evidence of the alleged transfer of liabilities.
Hilt v. Foster Wheeler, LLC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
690 Fed. Appx. 482
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s granting of summary judgement in a case involving a sailor’s exposures, to asbestos insulation dust from boilers manufactured by Defendant Foster Wheeler.
Major v. R.J. Reynolds’s Tobacco Co.
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight
14 Cal app 5th 1179
After a jury concluded that defendant's cigarettes were defectively designed, and that their design was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's death, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. appealed on various grounds seeking a new trial. The Court of Appeal upheld the jury verdict.
2016
Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four
Unpublished
After a jury concluded that Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. a product manufacturer was at fault for exposing Mr. Casey to asbestos resulting in a diagnosis for mesothelioma, and after a second jury awarded punitive damages, Kaiser Gypsum Co. appealed on various grounds seeking a new trial. The Court of Appeal upheld the jury verdict. The Plaintiffs’ received punitive damages.
Gottschall v. General Dynamics Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
669 Fed. Appx. 350
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s granting of summary judgement based on: (1) the sophisticated intermediary defense; and (2) the government contractor defense.
Hanson v. Collins Electrical Co.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One
Unpublished
The trial court granted a motion for summary judgement based on a theory that the Plaintiff’s pleural disease was not a cognizable injury because it did not cause impairment. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under Potter v. Firestone, impairment is not required to recover medical monitoring damages. Hanson submitted enough evidence of pleural plaquing and his doctor's recommendations for monitoring to raise a triable issue of fact on his medical monitoring claim.
Hetzel v. Hennessy Industries, nc.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One
247 Cal app 4th 521
The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court granting of summary judgement against an injured mechanic, because there was a triable issue as to whether a manufacturer of brake shoe arcing machines had a duty to warn, even where the machines themselves did not contain asbestos, because there was evidence the grinders were designed for passenger cars and trucks, the vast majority of which contained asbestos in the relevant period, and it was undisputed that grinding such brakes with the manufacturer's products released asbestos dust in the air; thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that the inevitable use of the products would expose a worker to asbestos dust absent safety protection or adequate warning.
O’Leary v. Dillingham Construction, inc.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One
Unpublished
The trial court’s granted a motion for summary judgement on the basis there was no evidence that the insulation swept into the air by Dillingham laborers in the early 1970's, near where the Plaintiff was working, contained asbestos. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed, because it found the testimony of Plaintiff's expert, Charles Ay, a certified asbestos consultant, regarding asbestos content of the insulation to be credible.
2015
Casey v. Dynalectric Co.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three
Unpublished
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision granting a motion for summary judgement. Defendant owed a duty to prevent to exercise reasonable care to avoid exposing others to harmful dust whether they were aware the dust contained asbestos or not.
2014
Fields v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
Unpublished
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision granting a motion for summary judgement. The Plaintiff's deposition testimony created triable issues of material fact regarding his use of asbestos containing Goodyear Wingfoot gaskets prior to 1969.
Gottschall v. Crane Co.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
Unpublished
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision granting a motion for summary judgement on the sophisticated user defense. The sophisticated user defense only applies to users who knew or should have known of the particular risk, not intermediaries.
2012
Shields v. Hennessy industries, Inc; Hetzel v. Hennesey Industries, Inc; Godbee v. Hennessy industries, Inc; Kennedy v. Hennessy industries, Inc; Schlimmer v. Hennessy industries, Inc.
(All Consolidated)
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One
205 Cal app 4th 782
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s granting of a judgment on the pleadings because the pleadings alleged that Hennesey manufactured and distributed a machine that the sole and intended use of defendant’s brake arcing machine resulted in the release of contained asbestos particles, which if true, expressed facts supporting a viable legal theory of negligence under California law.
Bettencourt v. Hennessy industries, Inc; Siegel v. Asbestos; Pearson v. Hennessy industries, Inc; Shusted v. Hennessy industries, Inc.
(All Consolidated)
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five
205 Cal app 4th 1103
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s granting of a judgment on the pleadings. The court held that plaintiffs could state causes of action for strict liability and negligence because they claimed that the manufacturer's own product contributed substantially to their harm. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant manufactured and distributed brakeshoe grinding machines and that the sole and intended purpose of the machines was to grind asbestos-containing brake linings.
205 Cal app 4th 1103
Leonard v. John Crane, Inc.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five
206 Cal app 4th 1274
Plaintiff wife's husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a progressive and fatal disease related to asbestos exposure. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, California, sustained defendant corporation's demurrer to the wife's loss of consortium cause of action without leave to amend because they were not married at the time of the exposures that caused his mesothelioma. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that where an injury to a spouse that in turn causes injury to the plaintiff's right to consortium in the marital relationship is not discovered or discoverable until after the couple's marriage, and the underlying cause of action thus accrues during the marriage, the plaintiff has a valid claim for loss of consortium even though the negligent conduct may have predated the marriage.
2011
Griffin (“Steadman”) v. Allis Chambers Corp.
Oregon Court of Appeals
240 Ore. App. 137, 141
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s granting of a judgment. Plaintiff had brought product liability and negligence actions against Union Carbide, alleging that it supplied raw asbestos to a manufacturer and that plaintiff, a long-haul truck driver, was exposed to the asbestos when he was at the manufacturing plant to load finished products. Plaintiff's theory was that raw asbestos fibers were released into the air during the manufacturing process and that he inhaled enough of them to cause his mesothelioma. The Court of Appeal concluded triable issue of fact existed.
Nikki Pooshs v. Phillip Morris
Supreme Court of California
51 Cal. 4th 788, 792
The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Nikki Pooshs and held that when a later‐developed injury arising from the same wrongful conduct is “separate and distinct” from an earlier injury, the statute of limitations runs independently for the later injury.
2010
Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
606 F.3d 1124
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that Northern California was the proper venue for Brayton Purcell’s copyright infringement suit against the law firm of Recordon & Recordon.
2009
Lunsfor v. Saberhagen Holdings
Supreme Court of Washington
166 Wn.2d 264
The Washington State Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, ruled that strict product liability applied retroactively in a case where asbestos exposure occurred prior to Washington State’s adoption of strict product liability law under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
2008
Vickie Warren v. United States Steel Corp, et al.
Utah Court of Appeals
Unpublished
The Utah Court of Appeals denied US Steel Corp’s Petition for Permission to Appeal an Interlocutory Order. US Steel based its Petition on having no legal duty to plaintiff Vickie Warren.
Rafter v. American Biltrite
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 1348
A summary judgment in favor of defendant American Biltrite, Inc. was vacated and the case sent back for trial in the Washington State Superior Court in King County. The summary judgment was based on a witness’ testimony being excluded as a contradiction.
Cadlo, et al. v. Metalclad Insulation Corp.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five
151 Cal. App. 4th 1311
Maxlyn Cadlo successfully appealed a summary judgment in favor of Metalclad Insulation Corp. The Appellate Court’s decision vacated the judgment and sent the case back to the lower court for trial on the issue of damages.
Garza v. Asbestos Corporation, LTD.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three
161 Cal. App. 4th 651, 652
The San Francisco First District Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by Asbestos Corporation, LTD. (“ACL”), and affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Butler v. Amtico Int'l, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
2006 Wash. App. LEXIS 1635
The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of Domco and reinstated Mr. and Mrs. Butler’s case.
2002
McKinney v. California Portland Cement Co. and Amcord Inc.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One
96 Cal. App. 4th 1214
Asbestos manufacturers lose on appeal; the amount of damages to plaintiffs considered appropriate.
2000
Wagner v. Apex Marine Ship Management Corp.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
83 Cal. App. 4th 1444
Court of Appeal reaffirms the rights of asbestos victims to file a second lawsuit when they develop additional injuries from asbestos.
Munoz v. Western Water Works Supply Co, Inc.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
Unpublished
Reversed a trial court’s order and granted a retired pipefitter suffering from asbestosis a new trial against an asbestos defendant.
Hamilton et al. v. Asbestos Corp.
Supreme Court of California
22 Cal. 4th 1127
CA Supreme Court reaffirms that statute of limitations did not bar the right to file claims when asbestos-related cancers were discovered.
1999
Dupont v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
Unpublished
Not to be published in official reports. Reinstated plaintiffs’ case after grant of summary judgment for defense; strengthens a plaintiff’s case when the plaintiff has evidence that a defendant’s products could have caused the injury.
Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
69 Cal.App.4th 64
Strengthened plaintiffs’ right to trial by jury by clarifying what a defendant must show before being granted “summary judgment.”
1998
Richmond v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five
66 Cal.App.4th 878
Upheld the “primary right” theory of the statute of limitations for asbestos cases.
Cassiar Mining Corp. v. Superior Court
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
66 Cal.App.4th 550
California jurisdiction is available against a Canadian asbestos mining company with 38–year history of doing business in California.)
Gutierrez v. Cassiar Mining Corp.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two
64 Cal.App.4th 148
Trial court findings upheld as to liability of asbestos mine; defense witnesses properly excluded.
Arena v. Owens Corning Corp.
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One
63 Cal.App.4th 1178
“Consumer expectations” theory of products liability law is valid and applies against suppliers of raw asbestos)
