Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust
424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) Cited 266 times 17 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiffs place of work is insufficient [to establish causation,]" and rather that a plaintiff must show "a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural"
Bartel v. John Crane Inc.
316 F. Supp. 2d 603 (N.D. Ohio 2004) Cited 17 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding Dr. Frank's single fiber theory to be inconsistent with prevailing scientific evidence, including the testimony of Drs. Lemen and Hammar