OPINION OF THE COURT IN CASE INVOLVING BRAKE MECHANICS

Helen E. Freedman, J.

In these actions, defendant auto giant moves in limine for (i) an order precluding plaintiffs from offering evidence that exposure to automotive friction products causes asbestos disease in motor vehicle mechanics; and (ii) an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing plaintiffs' complaints and all cross claims against the auto-giant in their entirety. Based on the foregoing, both motions are denied.

Alternatively, defendant seeks a Frye (United States v Frye, 293 F 1013 [1923]) hearing for the purpose of demonstrating that the chrysotile asbestos fibers in motor vehicle brakes are not associated with an increase in the incidents of asbestos related diseases beyond the incidence of such diseases in the general population, that is people who have no known occupational exposure to asbestos. That application is also denied without prejudice to making such an application in any specific case before or at trial.

see also:

Dr. Mary Jane Teta Dr. Mary Jane Teta's opinion in asbestos case
Read defense expert Dr. Mary Jane Teta's opinion in an asbestos case

Mesothelioma Motion Mesothelioma Motion: Court Conclusion in Auto Giant Case. Lawsuit Info
Read about a recent mesothelioma motion and get a free legal review.

Court opinion Court opinion in brake mechanics' mesothelioma case
Court opinion in mesothelioma case of brake mechanics