Last week, a Connecticut federal court granted summary judgment to General Electric over an asbestos case, stating there was no material fact that the company’s products were the reason for the plaintiff’s injury.
A couple filed a lawsuit against General Electric and multiple other defendants stating that the man was exposed to asbestos while working as a radiological control technician for General Dynamics/Electric Boat Corp. from 1973-1974. The plaintiffs are seeking for loss of consortium and common-law product liability.
According to the court, a plaintiff must show that he was exposed to the defendant’s product, the product was a substantial contributing factor in causing the injury he suffered, and that the defendant manufactured or distributed the injurious product. During interrogation, the plaintiffs did not list GE as an employer nor mentioned any products of GE that he was exposed to.
As the plaintiff did not provide anything which showed his exposure to a GE product, the court granted summary judgment in favor of GE.
Earlier in December 2019, J&J argued that its talcum powder did not contain asbestos for which the company even provided the required evidence from the agency and institutional studies that outline the company's testing protocol, including more than 170,000 test samples of talc which claimed it as asbestos-free.
Currently, 14,000 Talcum Powder and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits are centralised before the jury under multi-district litigation MDL No. 2738; In Re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The lawsuits are even pending in California, proceeding under Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4877.
