Davis v. Honeywell Int'l
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against Honeywell, presenting expert testimony at trial in support of her claim that her father's exposure to asbestos in Bendix brake linings that he used when performing brake jobs in the 1960s and 1970s was a substantial factor in contributing to his risk of developing mesothelioma. On appeal, Honeywell contends that this opinion testimony – which commonly is referred to as the “every exposure,” “any exposure,” or “any fiber” theory – should have been excluded under Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, because it is speculative and devoid of evidentiary and logical support. The court concluded that the theory is the subject of legitimate scientific debate. Because in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony the trial court “does not resolve scientific controversies," it is for the jury to resolve the conflict between the every exposure theory and any competing expert opinions. The court therefore held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing plaintiff’s medical expert to testify. The court further concluded that the issue of causation was adequately covered by the jury instructions given and thus the trial court did not err by refusing to give Honeywell's proposed supplemental jury instruction based upon language in Rutherford regarding factors that may be relevant in determining whether a plaintiff’s exposure to a particular asbestos-containing product should be deemed a substantial factor in causing the cancer at issue.
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.