Not to be published in official reports

Download 27.47 Kb.
Size27.47 Kb.
1   2   3   4

The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.


Pollak, Acting P.J.

We concur:


Siggins, J.


Jenkins, J.

1 Plaintiffs’ complaint also alleged a cause of action for strict products liability that was withdrawn by plaintiff prior to the ruling on the summary judgment motion.

2 The safety orders set a lower maximum exposure threshold for asbestos at five million particles per cubic foot of air. (Cal. Dept. of Industrial Relations, Dusts, Fumes, Vapors and Gases Safety Orders, Order No. 1903, eff. Dec. 28, 1936, as amended July 20, 1948.)

3 We note that contrary to the statement in Cohen’s declaration, the safety orders, as amended effective June 1968, no longer include a threshold maximum for total dust. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, app. A, Reg. 68, No. 21-A (June 1, 1968).) We offer no opinion as to the effect of the amendment with respect to defendant’s duty beginning in June 1968. It is sufficient for purposes of considering defendant’s motion for summary judgment that, as discussed below, defendant owed a duty to prevent harmful exposure to total dust under the safety orders in effect for at least part of the 1968-1969 period (i.e., until May 31, 1968).

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page