A Florida appeals court has reversed a lower court’s decision, allowing a lawsuit to proceed against Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction Inc. The suit claims that Joan Smith developed mesothelioma from inhaling asbestos fibers present on her husband’s work clothes, which he wore while servicing heavy trucks.
Case Details and Evidence Presented
The First District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously to reinstate the case, which was initially dismissed by an Okaloosa County judge. Joan Smith was allegedly exposed to asbestos through dust from her husband’s clothes as she handled his laundry. Her husband worked with brake linings on Mack Trucks, a task he performed from 1969 to 1993.
Central to the appeal was whether brake linings supplied by Carlisle to Mack Trucks contained asbestos and whether these linings could be specifically linked to Joan’s exposure. Carlisle contested the claim, suggesting that no evidence directly named them as the provider of asbestos-containing brake linings during the relevant period.
However, the plaintiff, Larry Smith, Joan’s son, provided evidence indicating that from 1974 to 1979, Mack Trucks exclusively used brake linings from Carlisle, which were then rebranded as Mack products. This evidence was deemed sufficient by the appeals panel to establish a potential link to Carlisle, fulfilling the product-identification requirement under Florida law.
The legal standard in Florida requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that the defendant’s product was the source of asbestos exposure. The appeals court cited the 1984 Florida Supreme Court decision in Gooding v. University Hospital, confirming that Larry Smith had met this threshold with his circumstantial evidence.
Despite Carlisle’s arguments that it wasn’t the sole supplier of brake linings during the specified years, the appellate judges noted the frequency of brake jobs performed by Mr. Smith and concluded that the likelihood of exposure to Carlisle’s products increased with each job. This, along with the sheer number of linings involved in servicing each truck, supported the possibility of consistent exposure to Carlisle’s asbestos-containing products.
The court also mentioned that the possibility of other suppliers contributing to Joan Smith’s asbestos exposure should be considered by a jury, thereby setting the stage for a trial. This decision marks a significant step in addressing the challenges faced by families affected by secondary asbestos exposure.
