California Court of Appeal
22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 282 (2004)
Ronald Biles (plaintiff) claimed that he was injured from exposure to asbestos while helping build an oil refinery. Biles sued Exxon Mobile Corp. (Exxon) (defendant), the eventual owner of the refinery, for premises liability. During discovery, Exxon served an interrogatory asking Biles to identify each person who knew something about the work exposing Biles to asbestos. In May 2003, Biles answered the interrogatory by stating that he had conducted a reasonable inquiry and did not have information responsive to the request. Biles also reserved the right to supplement the response as his investigation continued. Exxon moved for summary judgment based on a lack of evidence that Biles had been exposed to a dangerous condition. The same law firm that represented Biles also represented different plaintiffs in a separate asbestos case against Exxon. A witness deposed in that separate case, Roger Bellamy, testified that he had worked with Biles at the same oil refinery. When Biles responded to Exxon’s motion for summary judgment, he relied on: (1) Bellamy’s deposition testimony from the separate case and (2) a declaration from Bellamy saying that Exxon employees used compressed-air hoses to blow asbestos dust throughout the refinery. Exxon objected to this evidence because Bellamy had not been disclosed in either the original interrogatory response or in any supplemental interrogatory response as someone with information about Biles being exposed to asbestos at work. The trial court agreed, based in part on a finding that Biles had promised to supplement the interrogatory response if he uncovered new information, and excluded the evidence from Bellamy. The trial court then granted Exxon’s motion for summary judgment. Biles appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Ruvolo, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 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.
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 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.