This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Focus (Forum & Focus)

Apr. 14, 2009

Indecent Exposure

California courts should recognize that extending a duty of care in exposure cases will not solve the myriad problems with asbestos litigation, write Michael L. Fox and George S. Sullivan.

FOCUS COLUMN

By Michael L. Fox and George S. Sullivan

Four decades of asbestos litigation has thinned the ranks of viable manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products, but plaintiffs' attorneys have replenished the pool of defendants by developing new theories of liability. In recent years, this "endless search for a solvent bystander" has resulted in the filing of an increasing number of cases in which family members of people who ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up