Mavroudis 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 when multiple asbestos products exists as potential causes of asbestosis, a plaintiff can prevail by showing “that the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury”
• noting Sofie holding that asbestos-related injuries fall within the hazardous substance exception to the general limitation of joint and several liability
• noting Sofie holding that asbestos-related injuries fall within the hazardous substance exception to the general limitation of joint and several liability
• affirming despite instructional error where “the error was harmless because the jury rendered a single monetary verdict on both the strict liability product-warning claim and the negligent failure-to-warn claim”
• speaking of a \change\ from the but-for to the substantial factor test for causation
• a cause of action \arises\ when the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos, not when he discovered his injury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).