Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC
Annotate this Case
In 2015, Hahn filed suit, alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos at his job with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. During a deposition, the Agency's representative testified that Boeing manufactured the light rail vehicles the Agency used during Hahn’s employment and that Air Brake “designed, developed and built the braking system.” for those vehicles. He did not testify that any Air Brake product contained asbestos. About two months after Richard’s August 2016 death, his heirs sued the Agency and Boeing. Air Brake was not initially named as a defendant; the plaintiffs named “Doe defendants,” Later, Boeing produced documents indicating that Air Brake designed and supplied the brakes for Boeing’s light rail vehicles and that Air Brake specified the use of asbestos-containing brake pads. Within a month, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting Air Brake for a Doe defendant, under Code of Civil Procedure section 474.1
The trial court granted Air Brake summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs could not invoke section 474 because they “knew or should have known” facts establishing a cause of action against Air Brake when they filed their complaint; their action was thus untimely. The court of appeal reversed. Compliance with section 474 is determined by the facts that a plaintiff actually knew at the time she filed the complaint, not the facts she should have known.
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.