HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE

Defendant Union Pacific’s Statute of Limitations Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

4 After discovery, Union Pacific moved for summary judgment on grounds that the three-year limitations period had run on the claim and that Christiansen had not presented any evidence that Union Pacific had been negligent.

Christiansen responded with the affidavit of an expert claiming that Union Pacific was aware of the dangers of asbestos in the mid-1930s when the American Association of Railroads issued a report. The expert also alleged that the general working conditions at a Union Pacific facility would have exposed a mechanic like Christiansen to hazardous doses of asbestos.

The trial court granted Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment with respect to the statute of limitations, ruling that the limitations period had run on his claim because he "knew or reasonably should have known of both his injury and its cause" in the mid-1990s.

The trial court also denied Union Pacific's motion with respect to the sufficiency of Christiansen's evidence, concluding that Christiansen had "set forth sufficient facts to create a duty and show a breach of that duty."

5 Christiansen filed an unopposed Rule 54(b) Motion to Enter Final Judgment as to Union Pacific Railroad Company and to Certify as Ready for Appeal. The trial court granted the motion and entered final judgment. Christiansen appealed, and Union Pacific cross-appealed.

Courtesy of Christiansen v. Union Pacific
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


IN THIS SECTION
Parties in the Case
Review of the Facts in the Case
Plantiff's Asbestos Exposure
Union Pacific's Motion Denied
Issues and Standard of Review
Analysis
Union Pacific's Assertions
The Court's Considerations
FELA Defendants
Union Pacific's Contentions
Summary Judgment on the Limitations Period
Plaintiff Learns of his Injury
The Trial Court's Decision
The Plaintiff's Argument
Did the Plaintiff Diligently Pursue his Claim?
The Court's Opinion
The Court's Conclusons


RETURN BACK TO
Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Asbestos Help
News & Warnings

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:

Issues and Standard of Review Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Issues and Standard of Review
The Christiansen v. Union Pacific decision

Plantiff's Asbestos Exposure Asbestos exposure of Plaintiff Christensen v. Union Pacific case
Asbestos exposure in regards to the plaintiff: Keep reading

Christiansen v. Union Pacific Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Important Asbestos litigation decision
Read about the asbestos case of Christiansen v. Union Pacific