Smith, et al. v. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.

Case Updates

NCLC urged a Texas appeals court to reject a proposed exception to normal tort causation rules that would make it easier for asbestos plaintiffs to prevail without proving that exposure to a defendant's asbestos-containing product was a substantial factor in the plaintiff's mesothelioma. In this case, the plaintiff argued that he needed only show “some” or “any” exposure to asbestos to prove the defendant's product caused his illness. In its amicus brief, NCLC argued that Texas Supreme Court precedent clearly requires an asbestos plaintiff to prove exposure to a quantified dose of asbestos sufficient to make a defendant's product a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiff's disease. NCLC warned that loosening the evidence rules would encourage more frivolous asbestos litigation, adding to the already crippling backlog of asbestos cases.