Dixon v. Ford Motor Co.

Case Updates

The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld Maryland's cap on non-economic damages, but, based on 20-year-old precedent, the Court allowed an asbestos claim to proceed. The Court also declined to adopt the “any exposure” theory advocated by the plaintiffs.

The U.S. Chamber urged the Maryland Court of Appeals to affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals, which rejected the any exposure theory of liability for asbestos exposure. In this case, the plaintiff's expert witness relied on this highly speculative theory in reaching her causation opinion. The Chamber argued in its amicus brief that the any exposure theory, and thus the expert's testimony, should be rejected since it is speculative, unreliable, and not based on credible science. The Chamber's brief pointed out that almost thirty courts around the country have excluded expert testimony based on this faulty science because they have found it to be unscientific and inconsistent with causation requirements. The Chamber urged the Maryland Court of Appeals to join the myriad of other courts who have rejected this theory.