|
|
| 5/28/2009 |
| |
On May 21, 2009, the Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, issued an opinion upholding a summary judgment decision for the defendant in the case of Beverly Fagerholm, Individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of George Fagerholm v. General Electric Co., et al. At deposition, a representative for General Electric admitted that the defendant was aware of the presence of asbestos at facility where the plaintiff was employed. Furthermore, General Electric’s representative also admitted that the defendant was cognizant of the potential risks posed to employees by asbestos exposure. However, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence indicating that General Electric possessed actual knowledge that asbestos-related injuries were substantially certain to occur to employees at the facility in question and, therefore, a claim for Employer Intentional Tort could not be sustained. The defendant’s position was bolstered by evidence indicating that the facility was in compliance with all state safety regulations and that the plaintiff-decedent ignored safety procedures that General Electric installed to mitigate the effects of asbestos exposure. Consequently, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the defendant.
By:
Marc Felezzola
|
>Opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<back
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
