Crane Co. v. Superior Court
- Case Date: 6/25/2009
- Project Name: Civil Justice Reform
On July 8, 2009, the California Supreme Court declined to review an asbestos product liability case that sought clarification of the standards for determining when a defendant is entitled to summary judgment. In a brief requesting that review be granted, WLF had argued that many California courts have adopted overly strict standards for granting such motions. WLF noted that defendants who lose a summary judgment motion often are forced to settle even unmeritorious claims to avoid the prohibitive costs of trial. In most states, if a plaintiff at his deposition fails to recall any exposure to a defendantís products, the defendant can prevail on summary judgment unless, in response, the plaintiff comes forward with some evidence of exposure. But in a rule unique to California, many of its courts deny summary judgment even if the plaintiff fails to come forward with exposure evidence, unless the plaintiff at his deposition has provided testimony ruling out all possibility of exposure.
More Information and Downloads:
6/25/2009: Download the Brief