The plaintiff was diagnosed with silicosis in a recent case. He had been exposed to silica sand for about 11 years as a sandblaster. His lungs were so damaged he needed double lung transplant. He sued the companies that manufactured or supplied the safety equipment he had used while sandblasting. He alleged strict liability for defective design of the equipment and negligent failure to warn.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, concluding his claims against two of the companies failed because he failed to show that they proximately caused his injuries. The plaintiff had not shown how much exposure he experienced while using their equipment. The court also granted all of the defendants’ summary judgment on the failure to warn claim, finding there was no duty to warn the plaintiff of known risks while sandblasting.
The plaintiff appealed arguing that the trial court had erred on the issue of proximate cause by finding he needed to show the actual quantity of respirable silica he had been exposed to while wearing the safety gear. He also argued there was error in finding the defendants owed him no duty to warn of sandblasting dangers. Continue reading →