Two Issues:  Substantial Factor Analysis In Product Case And Whether There Should Be A Setoff Due To Potential For Future Settlements.

Plaintiffs’ decedent died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. After trial, a jury found defendant was ten percent (10%) responsible for plaintiffs’ damages. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) plaintiffs failed to introduce expert testimony that defendant’s asbestos alone (as opposed to acting in combination with others’ asbestos) constituted a substantial factor in the development of decedent’s mesothelioma; and (2) the trial court erred in not reducing the damages awarded against it to account for settlements plaintiffs could obtain from other potentially liable parties’ bankruptcy trusts. The appellate court affirmed. Regarding the causation issue, the court said “the jury had a sufficient basis on which to conclude that decedent’s exposure to [defendant’s] asbestos products constituted a substantial factor in increasing his risk of mesothelioma.” Regarding the potential for settling with bankrupt defendants and possible setoffs, the court said: “If a later settlement subsequently allows plaintiffs a double recovery, that does not retroactively make the instant judgment improper.”  (Paulus v. Crane Co. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; March 24, 2014)224 Cal.App.4th 1357, [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 373].)