Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer

736 S.E.2d 724 (Va. 2013)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer

Virginia Supreme Court

736 S.E.2d 724 (Va. 2013)

Play video


Walter Boomer (plaintiff) filed a wrongful death suit against Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Bendix Corporation (Bendix) (defendants) on behalf of his father-in-law, James Lokey. For many years Lokey, a Virginia State Trooper, stood over mechanics using compressed air to blow out brake dust so that Lokey could perform visual inspection of vehicles’ brakes. The dust inhaled by Lokey contained asbestos, and eventually the exposure resulted in a diagnosis of mesothelioma for Lokey. Prior to his death, Lokey testified via deposition that he made visual inspections for five to six hours per day for over 10 days per month. Prior to working as a state trooper, Lokey worked as a pipefitter in a naval shipyard, where asbestos-containing products also were likely present. At trial, Boomer’s medical experts testified that the asbestos-containing brakes manufactured by Bendix, which were installed in vehicles manufactured by Ford, were a substantial, contributing factor to Lokey’s mesothelioma. Defense experts testified to the opposite conclusion. At the close of evidence, the trial judge instructed the jury on proximate cause and asked the jury to determine whether the defendants’ negligence was a “substantial contributing factor” to Lokey’s mesothelioma. The trial court overruled the defendants’ objections to the use of the instruction. The jury held for Boomer and awarded damages over $282,000. The defendants appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Millette, 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 517,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 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 and answers

What is the difference between the "substantial contributing factor" language and the language found in the restatement of torts?

I was following along with the summary until I saw that it stated that the court found a reversible error. It seemed to me that the statement language helped the plaintiff in this case but maybe I just need further clarification.

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. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership