Legal Opinion

Schwartz v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 2018No. 2016–1372PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeWine, J.

*176{¶ 1} To recover on a claim for asbestos-related injuries, a plaintiff must show that exposure to a particular defendant's product was a "substantial factor" in causing her asbestos-related injuries. The primary question here is whether the "substantial factor" requirement may be met through a "cumulative-exposure theory," which postulates that every nonminimal exposure to asbestos is a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma. We conclude that the cumulative-exposure theory is inconsistent with the test for causation set forth in R.C. 2307.96 and therefore not a sufficient basis for…

Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment; Dissent.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
  3. McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  4. Krik v. Exxon Mobil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
  5. Martin v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Turner v. CertainTeed Corp. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  2. Maddy v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  3. Shaffer v. A.W. Chesterton Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019
  4. Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API