HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE

Trial Court’s Decision

14 The trial court determined in its memorandum decision granting summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific that Christiansen "knew or reasonably should have known of his injury and its cause by the mid-1990[]s" because he "admits subjectively believing asbestos was harmful and that his illness was caused by asbestos."

Although the trial court did not reference the portions of the record upon which it relied, Union Pacific contends that this conclusion is supported by the following admissions made by Christiansen:

He was aware at some point in the mid-1980s that asbestos was dangerous;

He noticed breathing problems in the early 1990s, which caused him to retire around 1995;

He stated that at about that time "I decided in my own mind the connection to asbestos";

He sought medical help and, although doctors did not conclude it was asbestos-related, he "kind of knew in [his] own mind what was causing it"; and When he was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2002, he was not surprised because "[i]t just confirmed what [he] had thought for quite a while." It also appears from Christiansen's deposition that he was aware of coworkers who had died after experiencing similar symptoms.

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
Real Stories


Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma Resource Center
Asbestos
Asbestos Exposure Dangers
Asbestos Help
News & Warnings
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

Mesothelioma Lawyer

Asbestos Lawyer

Mesothelioma Attorney

Asbestos Attorney

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:

The Court's Opinion Christiansen v. Union Pacific: The Court's Opinion
The Court's Opinion in the Christensen case

Did the Plaintiff Diligently Pursue his Claim? Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Plaintiff Diligently Pursues his Claim
Did the Plaintiff in Christensen pursue his claim diligenty?

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