GEORGE F. LOZNICKA, JR. AND LILLIAN N. LOZNICKA, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLEXITALLIC GASKET CO., INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Summary judgment for defendant in asbestos exposure case reversed because material factual disputes remain regarding asbestos emissions, OSHA compliance, and expert testing reliability.
Compliance with OSHA standards does not satisfy as a matter of law the common law duty to warn of dangers from asbestos products, and material factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
[1] Compliance with OSHA standards does not satisfy as a matter of law the common law duty to warn of dangers posed by asbestos products.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Compliance with OSHA standards does not diminish and satisfy as a matter of law the common law duty to warn of dangers of asbestos products.”
Court establishing that regulatory compliance is not a complete defense to common law duty to warn claims.
Plaintiffs alleged personal injury from breathing asbestos dust emanating from a gasket manufactured and distributed by defendant.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse OSHA Safety Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of the defendant in a personal injury action for damages allegedly resulting from the plaintiff’s breathing asbestos dust emanating from a gasket manufactured and distributed by the defendant. We reverse upon a finding that the defendant failed to carry its heavy burden of showing conclusively that no material issues of fact remain for determination at trial. E.g., Aloff v. Neff-Harmon, Inc., 463 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Compliance with OSHA standards does not diminish and satisfy as a matter of law the common law duty to warn of dangers of asbestos products. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Jimenez v. Gulf & Western Manufacturing Co., 458 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). There is a factual dispute regarding the applicable OSHA standard for airborne asbestos particles. Plaintiffs affidavit concerning the emission of asbestos particles from the gaskets is in direct contrast to the defendant’s contention that the level of emission is minimal. Disputed issues of fact regarding the reliability of the testing procedures used by defendant’s expert remain to be determined. These and other disputed issues of fact mandate reversal of the summary judgment and remand for trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Louise v. Adamo and Francis P. Adamo, 548 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e in negligence action involving an injured worker.) However, even when experts have been allowed to testify as to the compliance with, or violation of OSHA regulations, in support of their expert opinions, Loznicka v. Flexitallic Gasket Co., Inc., 489 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Clement v. Rousselle Corporation, 372 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the cases invariably concern an employer/employee relationship, or third party tort-feasor causing injury to a worker related to a building project. It would…
Authorities Cited
- Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Jimenez v. Gulf & W. Mfg. Co., 458 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Aloff v. Neff-Harmon, Inc., 463 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)