Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

Supreme Court of California
810 P.2d 549 (1991)


Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

Facts

Carl Anderson (plaintiff) was exposed to asbestos by working with products manufactured by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Owens-Corning) (defendant). Anderson brought suit on a theory of strict products liability claiming, among other things, that Owens-Corning failed to properly warn of the dangers inherent in exposure to the products. Owens-Corning's pleadings raised a state-of-the-art defense, asserting that even the foremost scientists working at the time the products were sold could not have known the dangers of asbestos to users of Owens-Corning's products. Before trial, Anderson moved to preclude Owens-Corning from presenting state-of-the-art evidence, and the trial court granted the motion. Owens-Corning argued that if it was precluded from presenting the evidence, then Anderson should be precluded from proceeding on a failure-to-warn theory (on the grounds that the state of the art was the only defense to that theory). The trial court granted the motion. The jury returned a verdict for Owens-Corning, but the trial court granted a new trial after Anderson asserted that the court erroneously prevented him from presenting the failure-to-warn theory. The appellate court upheld the order granting a new trial. The appellate court noted that state-of-the-art evidence is not admissible in asbestos strict products-liability cases, including cases based on a failure-to-warn theory. The Supreme Court of California granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Panelli, J.)

Concurrence (Broussard, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Mosk, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


How did supreme court decision affirm the appellate court judgement?

Appellate court judgement said state of the art evidence is not admissible. But supreme court decision said defendant may present state of the art evidence. Then, supreme court affirmed the appellate court decision? I do not understand the flow of logic.

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.