Krik v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

In action seeking recovery for plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos for two-week period while working for defendants as independent contractor removing refinery replacement heaters, Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding testimony from plaintiff’s expert witness concerning medical causation of said exposure to plaintiff’s lung cancer, where Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that expert’s “cumulative exposure theory” was essentially based on unsupported opinion that every exposure to asbestos, however brief, is substantial contributing factor to cumulative exposure that causes cancer. Moreover, law of causation required that plaintiff prove that defendants’ acts or products were substantial contributing factor to plaintiff’s illness, and de minimis exposure was not sufficient to establish said causation. Also, plaintiff was not entitled to new trial, even though defendant conducted investigation into belated claim made by one juror that she may have attended birthday party with plaintiff, since: (1) investigator asked only third-party about birthday party; (2) questions asked by investigator did not pertain to substance of case; and (3) there was no evidence that juror was intimidated by investigation.