Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the presence of asbestos at a workplace as large as a shipyard would not obviate a plaintiff’s need to demonstrate a more proximate connection
• holding that the presence of asbestos at a workplace as large as a shipyard would not obviate a plaintiff’s need to demonstrate a more proximate connection
• explaining that the “size of a workplace” is relevant to the assessment of whether the decedent was sufficiently exposed to the defendant’s asbestos
• noting that “[s]tate of the art [also] includes the element of time: [w]hat is known and when was this knowledge available”
• explaining exposure to a toxic product is actionable when the exposure is frequent, regular, and proximate
• referring to the frequency, regularity, and proximity test as “a de minimis rule since a plaintiff must prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the [asbestos] product”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).