Mallarie Simonds

A recent ruling from the Texas Supreme Court reinforces a demanding evidentiary standard in premises liability cases and reminds plaintiffs that circumstantial evidence of a hazard’s cause is not the same as evidence of its duration. In H-E-B, LP v.

The Plaintiff, an 84-year-old lifelong resident of Massachusetts, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in July 2021. She attributed her condition to over 70 years of daily use of the Defendant’s talc-based products, which she applied to herself and her seven children starting in the 1950s. Due to her medical condition, she was unable to be present in the courtroom during the trial.

At trial, Plaintiffs alleged that decedent Nicholas Barone was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-contaminated talc while working as an engineer from 1965 to 1967. Mr. Barone worked in a location where phenolic plastics compounds that incorporated both raw asbestos and talc were manufactured, and he recalled employees at the facility having “snowball fights” with raw asbestos. Mr. Barone was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died at age 81.