Defendants also cite evidence that casts doubt on whether the first brake job on this truck was necessarily performed in or around Stockton. One witness testified that, between 1977 and 1979, the 1975 International truck was driven throughout the western states and was away from Stockton about 60 percent of the time. Defendants argue the truck would presumably have required maintenance and repair work while it “therefore was on the road.” Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that the ultimate factual question before the jury would be whether Johnson himself was exposed to asbestos from OEM Defendants’ products in the 1975 International truck. Even if the jury were able to conclude Father probably performed the first brake job on this truck, it would have to further find that Johnson was either present during brake job and inhaled asbestos released during the that job, or that the asbestos fibers released during that job made their way into Johnson’s lungs by way of the family home or car. evidence supports an inference that Johnson’s these events were possible, but not that they were probable. Johnson argues the evidence here is comparable to the evidence that defeated summary judgment in 227 Cal.App.4th 1577. However, Ganoe, supra, Ganoe’s summary of the evidence plainly illustrates fewer inferential leaps were required to prove the was evidence [the defendant] performed insulation work on plaintiff’s case: “[T]here steam piping that the construction work requiring the at the Goodyear plant in 1974, only installation of insulation at the Goodyear plant in 1974 occurred when in Department 132 a new Banbury machine and were installed, that the installation of ‘lay-down machine’ those machines also required the removal of old insulation, and that Ganoe worked in that department, of the steam insulation and breathed in was present during the repair lines’ the (Id. at p. 1586, italics added.) Here, in contrast, Johnson has not resulting dust.” produced evidence of the approximate date and location of the first brake job or evidence presence at that place and time. establishing Father’s In sum, Johnson did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding his exposure to asbestos from OEM products in the Bekins trucks. Defendants’
Defendants also cite evidence that casts doubt on whether the first brake job on this truck was necessarily performed in or around Stockton. One witness testified that, between 1977 and 1979, the 1975 International truck was driven throughout the western states and was away from Stockton about 60 percent of the time. Defendants argue the truck “therefore would presumably have required maintenance and repair work while it was on the road.” Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that the ultimate factual question before the jury would be whether Johnson himself was exposed to asbestos from Defendants’ OEM products in the 1975 International truck. Even if the jury were able to conclude Father probably performed the first brake job on this truck, it would have to further find that Johnson was either present during that brake job and inhaled asbestos released during the job, or that the asbestos fibers released during that job made their way into Johnson’s lungs by way of the family home or car. Johnson’s evidence supports an inference that these events were possible, but not that they were probable. Johnson argues the evidence here is comparable to the evidence that defeated summary judgment in Ganoe, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 1577. However, Ganoe’s summary of the evidence plainly illustrates fewer inferential leaps were required to prove the plaintiff’s case: “[T]here was evidence [the defendant] performed insulation work on steam piping at the Goodyear plant in 1974, that the only construction work requiring the installation of insulation at the Goodyear plant in 1974 occurred in Department 132 when a new Banbury machine and ‘lay-down machine’ were installed, that the installation of those machines also required the removal of old insulation, and that Ganoe worked in that department, was present during the repair of the steam lines’ insulation and breathed in the resulting dust.” (Id. at p. 1586, italics added.) Here, in contrast, Johnson has not produced evidence of the approximate date and location of the first brake job or evidence establishing Father’s presence at that place and time. In sum, Johnson did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding his exposure to asbestos from Defendants’ OEM products in the Bekins trucks.
A131975.DOCX