Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Cumulative-Exposure Theory for Asbestos Claims

Product Liability Update

Date: February 14, 2018

Plaintiffs’ burden of proving that a particular defendant caused an asbestos-related injury will become more difficult due to a recent Ohio Supreme Court opinion discrediting the cumulative-exposure theory.

On February 8, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in Schwartz, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-474, that a plaintiff’s purported cumulative exposure to a variety of asbestos-containing products is insufficient to show that exposure from one defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s asbestos-related injury.

Ohio Revised Code § 2307.96 requires that plaintiffs asserting asbestos causes of action must prove that a particular defendant’s product was a “substantial factor” in causing their injuries. In determining whether an individual’s exposure to a particular defendant’s asbestos was a substantial factor, courts are required to consider the manner, proximity, frequency and duration of the asbestos exposure.

In Schwartz, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ cumulative-exposure theory as a means of proving substantial factor causation. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ commonly asserted claim that every non-minimal exposure to asbestos is a substantial factor in causing individuals’ injuries because each such dose purportedly contributes to a cumulative dose of asbestos exposure, resulting in overall harm.

In rejecting the theory, the court noted that the cumulative-exposure theory considers all of the defendants in the aggregate, which is inconsistent with the individual analysis required by statute; disregards the statutory considerations of manner, proximity, length and duration of exposure; and arbitrarily draws a line between the exposure levels that could be a substantial factor in causing disease and those that could not. The court joined the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and other state courts in holding that the cumulative-exposure theory cannot be relied upon to prove exposure from one defendant’s asbestos-containing product is a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff’s injury.


For more information, please contact:

Eric S. Daniel

Melissa Barrett

This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgment of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.

This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.