Roberts v. Speakman Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS, III JUDGE NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 NORTH KING STREET Suite 10400 W ILMINGTON , DE 19801 PHONE : (302) 255-0656 FASCIMILE: (302) 255-2274 October 26, 2006 Thomas C. Crumplar, Esquire Jacobs & Crunplar 2 East 7th Street P.O. Box 1271 Wilmington, DE 19899 Matthew P. Donelson, Esquire Elzufon, Austin, Reardon, Tarlov & Mondell, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1700 P.O. Box 1630 Wilmington, DE 19899-1630 Re: Roberts v. Speakman C.A. No. 01C-08-225-ASB Dear Counsel: As you know, Speakman Company ( Speakman ), presented its motion for summary judgment to the Court on September 11, 2006. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Court reserved decision on the motion and requested that the parties present supplemental briefing to address specifically the state of Speakman s knowledge regarding the hazards associated with asbestos at the time of the plaintiff s alleged exposure. The Court received the supplemental submissions on September 20, 2006 and October 1, 2006. To follow is the Court s decision on Speakman s motion. At oral argument, plaintiff s counsel represented that Speakman had actual 1 knowledge of the hazards of asbestos at or prior to the plaintiff s alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products distributed by Speakman. Under such circumstances, the Court noted that Speakman s mere supplier defense likely would not be dispositive since this defense would not apply if the supplier actually knew that the product it was supplying was hazardous.1 After reviewing the information contained in the supplemental submissions, the Court is satisfied that plaintiff has presented record evidence which, when viewed in a light most favorable to him as the nonmoving party, suggests that Speakman knew of the hazards of asbestos as early as 1973 and, perhaps, prior to that.2 Vel non Speakman is entitled to a mere supplier instruction at trial will be determined at the close of the plaintiff s case. For now, the Court is satisfied that plaintiff has established sufficient facts in the record to create a genuine issue as to whether Speakman knew or should have known of the hazards of asbestos at the time of or prior to plaintiff s alleged exposure. Accordingly, Speakman s motion for summary judgment must be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, Joseph R. Slights, III JRS, III/sb 1 See Restatement (Second) of Torts, ยง 402. 2 See A 14-16, 19-20, 21-25, attached to plaintiff s answering brief. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
