Mobil Corporation v. Johnson

Case Updates

Mobil Corporation and Johnson settled this case.

In the coalition brief, the Chamber asked the Florida court of appeals to reverse the lower court's judgment and hold that a plaintiff in a toxic tort case, including an asbestos case, must present evidence that the plaintiff was sufficiently exposed to the defendant’s product to cause the condition alleged, and that the plaintiff developed the condition as a result of that exposure. If courts permit liability to be imposed, as here, without requiring plaintiffs to show that they have received a sufficient dose of a defendant’s product to cause the condition alleged, and that they developed the condition as a result of that exposure, then there is a substantial risk that defendants in the countless pending Florida asbestos cases – as well as defendants in other toxic tort cases – could be held liable for conditions they did not cause and were not shown to have caused.

The brief reasons that a critical element of any latent injury case is a determination of the dose received by the plaintiff regarding the defendant’s product, and a finding that the dose was sufficient to cause, and did cause, the plaintiff’s alleged condition. This is true whether the exposure at issue involves asbestos, consumer products, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, or any other potentially harmful material.

Iain Kennedy of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

The U.S. Chamber filed this brief jointly with the Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Justice Reform Institute, Florida Insurance Council, American Tort Reform Association, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, National Association of Manufacturers, American Insurance Association, and the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc.