Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas 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 asbestos suppliers were not liable in negligence for the injuries caused by plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos—nor were they required “to inspect or test a product for danger”—since there was no evidence the suppliers “knew or had reason to know of the dangers”
• allowing for consideration of past awards actually paid by defendant for the same course of conduct
• allowing for consideration of past awards actually paid by defendant for the same course of conduct
• holding “the jury could infer that [the defendant] was a contributing cause of [the plaintiff’s] disease” because “it is not necessary and indeed may be impossible to establish exactly how much” exposure plaintiff experienced
• stating comparison of verdicts is of little value in determining whether loss-of-consortium award is adequate, due to factual distinctions
• holding “the jury could infer that [the defendant] 23 was a contributing cause of [the plaintiff’s] disease” because “it is not necessary and indeed may be impossible to establish exactly how much” exposure plaintiff experienced

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).