Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Mavroudis v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation

Washington Court of Appeals
935 P.2d 684 (1997)


Facts

Michael Mavroudis worked for the United States Navy doing ship conversions. Mavroudis spent almost four years on a project converting the U.S.S. Wright in the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. As part of that project, Mavroudis used three types of insulation, each made of asbestos. One of the insulations, Kaylo, was manufactured by the Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation (OCF) (defendant). Shortly after retiring, Mavroudis was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease exclusively associated with asbestos exposure. Mavroudis sued OCF, alleging, among other things, that OCF negligently failed to warn Mavroudis of the danger posed by Kaylo. Mavroudis died after filing suit, and his personal representative, Denise Mavroudis (plaintiff), was substituted as the plaintiff. At trial, an expert witness testified that all of Mavroudis’s exposure to asbestos from the various insulations he used at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard had probably contributed to Mavroudis’s mesothelioma. The witness also testified that he could not determine which of these asbestos exposures were the actual cause of the disease. Finally, the witness testified that even just 10 percent of Mavroudis’s exposure level would have been enough to cause mesothelioma. In regard to the question of causation in fact, the judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff did not have to prove that but for Mavroudis’s exposure to Kaylo, he would not have developed mesothelioma. Instead, the plaintiff had to prove that Kaylo was a substantial factor in Mavroudis’s illness, even if Mavroudis would have become ill regardless. The jury found in favor of Denise Mavroudis and awarded damages of over $1 million dollars. OCF appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly instructed the jury in regard to causation.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kenney, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 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.

  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 219,000 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.