LAOSD Asbestos Cases
Annotate this CaseThis case arose after Kenneth Evans was diagnosed with asbestosis after a decades-long career working for the Southern California Gas Company. After the jury found that Hood‘s conduct exposed Evans to asbestos, but that Hood was not negligent, a defense judgment was entered. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding two exhibits containing SoCalGas specifications for contractors, allowing the president of Hood to use a contract from an irrelevant time period to refresh his recollection about the content of earlier contracts, and giving the jury two erroneous instructions. The court rejected plaintiffs' evidentiary challenges; found that the jury instruction regarding an employer's duty was not an erroneous statement of the law, and even if it were, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they were prejudiced by any such error; concluded that the use of the special jury instruction regarding the professional standard of care, even if erroneous, did not prejudice plaintiffs in a manner that would warrant reversal; and concluded that the cumulative error doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
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.