HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE
English En Français

FREE LEGAL REVIEW

First Name
Last Name
Home Phone
Work Phone
City and State
Email
Were you diagnosed with Asbestosis? Yes
No
Were you diagnosed with lung cancer? Yes
No
Were you diagnosed with Mesothelioma? yes
no
What is your date of diagnosis?
Additional Comments
Best time to call?

Kinsman v. Unocal Asbestos case: The Theory in Toland

Read the discussion in the Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, where Unocal argues the Toland “superior knowledge” theory.

Unocal argues that Toland not only rejected the “superior knowledge” theory, but held that the hirer’s liability as a landowner to the independent contractor is limited to instances of fraudulent concealment, and that there is no evidence of fraudulent concealment in the present case. As Toland stated:

“Our decision in no way precludes employees of independent contractors from seeking recovery from a general contractor or other hiring person for personal injury resulting from a failure to disclose a concealed preexisting danger at the site of the hired work that was known to the hiring person.

Recovery in such a case would be for fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation, however, and would not involve the ‘comparative knowledge’ analysis proposed by the concurring and dissenting opinion, nor would it depend on the peculiar risk doctrine.”

The above statement, while correct, is incomplete. “It is axiomatic that language in a judicial opinion is to be understood in accordance with the facts and issues before the court. An opinion is not authority for propositions not considered.”

Toland did not involve premises liability for latent hazards, and the court had no occasion to decide the precise conditions under which such liability would attach. (Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 257 [plaintiff injured while helping to raise a heavy wall during the construction project].)

As explained above, landowner liability in this instance is measured by a negligence standard, and therefore a landowner would be liable not only when it deliberately withholds information but also when it negligently fails to discover or disclose latent hazards.

Therefore, the element of fraudulent intent required in fraudulent concealment cases is not necessary for premises liability in the present circumstances.

Courtesy of http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S118561.PDF

Other helpful links:

Asbestos Asbestos
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney

Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
head Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos


Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Asbestos Lawsuit
Asbestos Litigation
Books and other resources
IN THIS SECTION
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, undisputed facts
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, disputed facts
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, liability theory
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, Privette case
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, Privette rule
Kinsman asbestos case, Privette discussion
Kinsman asbestos case, Toland discussion
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; Camargo case
Kinsman asbestos case; Hooker discussion
Kinsman asbestos case; Caltran argument
Kinsman asbestos case, hire liability
Kinsman asbestos case; delegation
Kinsman asbestos case and Silverado
Kinsman asbestos case and Riverside
Kinsman asbestos case; landowner liability
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; liability
Kinsman asbestos case; landowner liability rules
Kinsman asbestos case, landowner-hirer liability
Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case; Markley case
Kinsman asbestos case
Kinsman asbestos case; Tosco
Kinsman case
Kinsman asbestos case; premises hazards
Kinsman asbestos suit; case application
Kinsman asbestos case, Toland majority
Kinsman asbestos case; premises liability theory
Kinsman asbestos case, latent hazard theories
Kinsman asbestos case, Toland theory
Kinsman asbestos case; premises hazards
Kinsman asbestos case; jury instruction reviewed
Kinsman asbestos case, instructional error
Kinsman asbestos case; oil industry reports
Kinsman disposition
Kinsman asbestos opinion
Kinsman asbestos case; appellant attorneys
Kinsman asbestos case; respondent attorneys

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

see also:

Kinsman asbestos case, Toland majority Kinsman asbestos case; Toland majority is discussed
Toland majority is discussed in Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case

Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case, Privette rule Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case where Privette rule is discussed.
Privette rule is reviewed in Kinsman v. Unocal asbestos case

CA Supreme Court Asbestos Case: Kinsman v. Unocal California Asbestos Lawsuit: Ray Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation
CA Supreme Court asbestos case: Kinsman v. Unocal in California