I've mentioned before in this space that the focus of asbestos litigation is turning toward California.  The April 16 issue of the Mealey's Litigation Report: Asbestos, demonstrates that.

You've probably already heard the biggest news out of California - the state's Supreme Court adopted the sophisticated user doctrine, seemingly a victory for defendants in the state.  But an appeals court also recently allowed plaintiffs' well-traveled expert Charles Ay to testify about his personal experiences at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard in a case against Metalclad. 

In another win for plaintiffs, another California appeals court held that Exxon Mobil incorrectly read case law in formulating its argument that control over the work area and an affirmative action were both required for liability to attach to a premises owner.  Not so said the court.  A land owner can be held liable if it knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and failed to provide warnings - even if it didn't control the work being done, that court said.

Finally, an appeals court found that Asbestos Corp.'s answer to a complaint was an "appearance" and waived its right to contest jurisdictional issues.

By my count that's one big win for defendants, but three victories for plaintiffs.  I'm sure that will only enhance the growing interest in California asbestos litigation.  Any one have any thoughts on what these rulings mean for the state and asbestos litigation in general?