The Gottschall, Crane, Shipyards, Navy, Asbestos & Mesothelioma case documents what many tire mechanics and workers may face today – past potential direct and secondary exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma. The court ruled on the motion.
To find out more on the case, see Case No. A136516 – October 8, 2014.
A brief summary of the facts include:
- On February 5, 2010, Robert Gottschall filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court against Crane and 17 of the original 18 defendants, all of which had allegedly caused him to develop an “asbestos-related disease” because of the products those defendants produced, and to which he was exposed by his work from 1957 to 1989 in a variety of shipyards and other similar facilities.
- Gottschall died, and on August 13, 2010, the superior court entered an order substituting his eldest daughter, Kimbra Gottschall, as the personal representative of his estate and his four other children (collectively, appellants).
- The heirs and family of decedent Robert Gottschall sued Crane Co. in the San Francisco Superior Court because of Robert’s death from mesothelioma, allegedly inflicted on him during his work in shipyards and similar places.
- Crane moved for summary judgment on the basis that a Pennsylvania federal court’s summary judgment in favor of another manufacturer—a judgment based on application of the “sophisticated user” doctrine—was collateral estoppel of the San Francisco action.
- On December 8, 2011, the Pennsylvania federal court granted summary judgment to defendant General Dynamics Corp., a defendant which had been sued because it had supplied the U.S. Navy vessels with asbestos-containing materials. The Pennsylvania federal court held that under California law the Navy was a “sophisticated user” of asbestos-containing material, and therefore appellants’ claims against General Dynamics failed.
- The San Francisco court agreed, and granted summary judgment for Crane. We reverse, holding that the federal court’s resolution of this issue was wrong under California law, and thus collateral estoppel does not apply.
- In both of these actions, i.e., the San Francisco Superior Court action and the action transferred to the Pennsylvania federal court, appellants made essentially the same assertions: their father, Robert Gottschall, had been exposed to asbestos-containing products while doing work at various shipyards on U.S. Navy vessels.
For more on asbestos and mesothelioma, please visit the links below:
- An Overview
- Asbestos Connection
- Exposure to Asbestos
- Signs and Symptoms
- Diagnosis/Staging and Treatment
- Go To Asbestos
- Resources
- Asbestos & Mesothelioma News
WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU PROTECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS