Submissibility: Union Pacific’s Assertions

In its first point, Union Pacific asserts that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because plaintiff failed to make a submissible case in that plaintiff’s evidence established only a mere possibility of asbestos exposure.

Union Pacific argues specifically that Dr. Ohar's diagnosis of asbestosis could not be considered evidence of plaintiff's exposure to asbestos because Dr. Ohar's diagnosis assumed that plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos, based on plaintiff's self-reported history of exposure. Union Pacific further argues that plaintiff's remaining evidence of his alleged asbestosis is speculative because plaintiff failed to establish that he was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers, and Union Pacific's evidence that plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos was not rebutted.

Courtesy of Missouri Court of Appeals: Timothy P. Hedgecorth v. Union Pacific Railroad Co

see also:

Argument 1 Union Pacific's first argument in asbestos trial
Asbestos Case Argument 1 - Union Pacific

Trial Court's Denial Checking the Asbestos Trial Court's Denial
Looking into the Trial Court's Denial in Asbestos Case

Assertions Union Pacific Makes Assertions in Asbestos Trial
Read the assertions made by Union Pacific in the asbestos case