California Court Reverses Verdict in Asbestos Exposure Case, Allows Sophisticated User Defense

In a recent California appellate decision, a multimillion-dollar jury verdict against brake manufacturer Pneumo Abex LLC (Abex) was reversed and remanded for retrial. The case, filed by plaintiff Steven Watts in Alameda County, California, focused on alleged asbestos exposure that led to Watts’ mesothelioma diagnosis. Watts claimed exposure to asbestos-containing products in his automotive repair shop, naming 36 defendants initially, with Abex remaining as the sole defendant by trial. The jury awarded over $10 million, attributing 60% of the liability to Abex, but Abex appealed the decision, challenging several aspects of the trial court’s handling.

The appellate court sided with Abex, noting substantial evidence supporting a sophisticated user defense. Under this defense, Abex argued it should not be liable for failing to warn Watts about asbestos dangers, given his experience and regulatory awareness. Watts had testified to avoiding compressed air near brakes, knowing it could disperse dangerous asbestos dust. Additionally, the court found merit in Abex’s claims regarding the jury’s fault allocation and exclusion of evidence supporting broader liability.

The appeal also addressed offset calculations related to pretrial settlements. The trial court had allocated 50% of pretrial settlements toward future wrongful death claims by Watts’ family, but Abex argued that was excessive. Although the appellate court refrained from ruling on this issue, it noted that under California law, loss of consortium claims can include post-death damages based on the injured spouse’s hypothetical life expectancy. The case has now been remanded for a new trial, where the jury will reconsider fault allocation and the sophisticated user defense.