Free v Crane Co, et al
N/AOUTCOME: Frye Motion Granted
Participated in Frye Hearing. Motion granted - many opinions of plaintiffs' experts excluded.
Barry Neal Mesher's Legal Cases (2)
Seattle, WA
Defective and dangerous products Lawyer at Seattle, WA
Practice Areas: Defective and Dangerous Products, Class Action ... +2 more
Braaten v Saberhagen Holdings, et al
N/AOUTCOME: The Supreme Court accepted review of the case, an
Barry Mesher successfully defended Lane Powell clients Buffalo Pumps, Inc. and Crane Co. in an asbestos case that ultimately was decided by the Washington Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision ... in Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, et al. (decided in conjunction with Simonetta v. Viad Corp., et al.) addresses and retains a fundamental limitation to products liability. The decisions in these cases will have a major impact in the asbestos litigation and other products liability cases in Washington and perhaps in other jurisdictions. Barry's clients manufactured pumps and valves that were sold to the U.S. Navy and installed aboard Navy ships. After installation, the valves and pumps were often insulated with asbestos-containing insulation and equipped with asbestos-containing packing and gaskets. None of the insulation or other asbestos-containing materials at issue were manufactured, sold or installed by our clients. The plaintiff, Vernon Braaten, worked as a pipefitter at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. He contracted an asbestos-related disease (mesothelioma) and sued our clients, alleging that his work on their equipment had exposed him to asbestos and caused his disease. He claimed that our clients should have warned him of the hazards of the asbestos products that were applied to their equipment. At the trial level Lane Powell obtained summary judgment dismissal for both clients, successfully arguing that the equipment manufacturers owed no duty to warn of the dangers posed by products that they did not make, sell or install. However, Mr. Braaten appealed and won a reversal at the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court accepted review of the case, and in a 6–3 decision it determined that our clients could not be held liable for failing to warn about the hazards of someone else’s product. The Court wrote, “The manufacturer has the duty to warn of the hazards involved in the use of the product that are or should be known to the manufacturer, but Washington case law does not support extending the duty to warn to another manufacturer’s product.â€
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
