Molina v. Shell Oil Co.
Plaintiffs William and Angela Molina appeal from the judgment entered after a jury found that chemicals in solvents made by three oil companies that William Molina had used while working at a tire company did not cause him to incur non-Hodgkins lymphoma. We hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to give a causation instruction geared toward multiple-defendant toxic tort cases where the defendants contest whether exposure to their particular products actually contributed to a plaintiff's illness. Instead, because the defendants in this case conceded exposure to their products, and their proportionate share of their contribution, but claimed their products were not capable of causing William Molina's illness at all, the trial court properly gave the standard pattern instructions on causation. The Molinas also contend that the trial court's pretrial ruling eliminating the consumer expectations theory of product liability was error. Court need not address the issue because the jury's finding that defendants' products did not cause William Molina's illness would have been the same regardless of which products liability theory was presented to the jury.
Comments on Molina v. Shell Oil Co.