lexisONE Community

Overview: Respondent alleged that the death of her husband resulted from his exposure to products containing asbestos that were manufactured by petitioner. The district court granted petitioner's summary judgment motion. The court of appeals reversed the district court, holding that petitioner's failure to support its motion with evidence to negate exposure precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor, and the court of appeals reinstated the suit. On appeal, court held that petitioner did not have to adduce affirmative evidence to disprove respondent's claim. The court held that under the court of appeals ruling, petitioner could have never been granted summary judgment unless he could have produced a detailed chronology of the decedent's life and showed that the decedent never came into contact with one of its products. Respondent was in the best position to produce such information; therefore the burden should have rested on her.

View full text of case for free>>