Sorenson v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that Washington state law requires physical injury or disease and evidence of a significant increased risk as a prerequisite for fear of future disease claim
• distinguishing Herskovits from an asbestos exposure claim that the plaintiff's risk of cancer was increased
• excluding evidence that asbestosis increases risk of cancer where plaintiff unable to prove reasonable probability that cancer will occur
• excluding evidence that asbestosis increases risk of cancer where plaintiff unable to prove reasonable probability that cancer will occur
• distinguishing Herskovits from an asbestos exposure claim that the plaintiff’s risk of cancer was increased
• stating the lost chance doctrine should apply solely where the plaintiff “has no other means of redress for his condition”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).