Pollard v. Metalclad Insulation Corp.
Plaintiff (Pollard) claimed that he suffered from asbestosis caused by exposure to Unibestos, a product distributed by defendant Metalclad Insulation Corp. (Metalclad). Metalclad contended that Pollard did not have any asbestos related injury and, if he did, it was not from exposure to Unibestos. A special jury verdict determined that Unibestos had a design defect, that there was a failure to warn, and that Metalclad was negligent. That same verdict three times answered no to the question whether the defect, failure, or negligence was a legal cause of injury to Pollard.
On appeal Pollard asserts that there was substantial evidence to the contrary and that the trial court committed error in two evidentiary rulings. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the special verdict and that neither evidentiary contention has merit. Accordingly, court affirm.
Comments on Pollard v. Metalclad Insulation Corp.