Greer v. Ace Hardware Corp.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Tort Law
  • Date Filed: 04-10-2013
  • Case #: A143981
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In a claim against asbestos manufacturers, a plaintiff must proffer evidence showing both the specific products used and specific instances of their use.

Greer appealed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Greer brought suit against a number of defendants alleging they were responsible for his mesothelioma by manufacturing and supplying products containing asbestos. He claimed he used the products during his career in the construction industry. Defendants argued Greer was unable to show any specific instances in which he used their asbestos containing products. Greer's initial deposition contained no information indicating he had used the defendants' products. However, he later submitted a declaration in which he claimed to have remembered specific instances of using defendant's asbestos containing products. The court below held Greer's declarations could not be considered because of their inconsistency with his deposition. Greer argued on appeal that the declarations should have been considered. The Court held that Greer did not include sufficient facts supporting his claim against the defendants. Greer's burden would not have been met even if the the trial court had considered the declarations. The burden was not met because he did not identify the specific products used. Affirmed.

Advanced Search