Products Liability Law Reporter

A New York appellate court reversed a trial court’s denial of a talcum powder defendant’s summary judgment motion in a products liability suit brought on behalf of a deceased flight attendant.

Flight attendant Linda English used Cashmere Bouquet powder while in New York on her regular layovers. She also used the product at home in Texas over the course of several decades and purportedly could not recall ever purchasing the product in New York. She developed mesothelioma and later died. In a subsequent suit against Colgate Palmolive Co., the defendant moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion.

Reversing, the appellate court noted that when a foreign resident’s exposure to a toxin occurs in foreign states, New York’s connection to the action is tenuous at best. Consequently, the court held that in light of the facts here, Texas law regarding proof of specific causation applies. The plaintiff failed to meet the Texas standard, the court found, noting that the plaintiff’s experts opined only that English’s exposure to asbestos contributed to the development of her mesothelioma. The plaintiff failed to provide any data quantifying English’s exposure or at what level of exposure her risk of disease would double, the court said.

Consequently, the court concluded that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion and directed the clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

Citation: Rasso v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 2023-05032 (N.Y. App. Div. May 21, 2024).