On June 6, 2018, plaintiff Arthur Putt, 79, a guest-services worker, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that develops on the lining of the lungs and that often stems from exposure to asbestos. Putt worked as a garage mechanic at various service stations in California and Indiana throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. During that time, he frequently serviced and replaced brakes manufactured by Ford Motor Co. Putt claimed that his cancer was a product of his inhalation of asbestos dust on the Ford brakes. Putt sued Ford Motor Co. and other companies that were believed to have manufactured, distributed and/or worked with asbestos-containing products to which Putt was allegedly exposed. Putt alleged that the defendants failed to warn of the potential risks of asbestos exposure. Putt’s complaint was coordinated with hundreds of other cases that were pending in different counties that shared common questions of fact or law regarding direct and indirect exposure, and involved many of the same defendants. The cases were joined in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Many of the cases were put on hold while awaiting a decision regarding an appellate case involving indirect exposure. Several companies were dismissed or settled their claims with Putt prior to trial. Putt’s complaint ultimately proceeded to trial against Ford Motor only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Ford Motor was a member of trade associations that discussed the issue of asbestos and that, following an in-house study, Ford Motor determined that its brakes contained asbestos that could be dangerous. Counsel argued that Ford Motor did not act upon the information it had available in the late 1960s or early 1970s and that Ford Motor ignored the dangers of asbestos for more than three decades. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Ford Motor began to warn its factory employees about asbestos in 1973, but that it failed to warn its customers or others who worked outside the company. According to Putt’s counsel, Ford Motor began warning the mechanics in its dealerships about asbestos in 1975, but that Ford Motor still did not notify customers or mechanics, such as Putt, who worked outside the dealerships. Counsel argued that even when Ford Motor started warning its customers about asbestos in the 1980s, it only put a notification in documents, rather than on the vehicles themselves. Plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that Ford Motor continued to use asbestos in its brakes up until the 2000s. Putt’s epidemiology expert testified that it is known, epidemiologically, that asbestos causes the disease. Ford Motor admitted that there was asbestos in its brakes but disputed whether the asbestos caused Putt’s illness. Its counsel argued that Ford Motor’s brakes did not release a sufficient amount of asbestos dust to require warnings. Defense counsel also disputed whether the asbestos in Ford Motor’s brakes caused Mr. Putt’s cancer. The defense’s expert epidemiologist performed a review of relevant epidemiology and opined that Ford Motor’s brakes do not increase the risk of mesothelioma. The defense’s expert industrial hygienist performed a risk assessment and similarly opined that Putt was not at an increased risk of mesothelioma from Ford Motor’s brakes. The defense’s expert pathologist opined that the type of asbestos fiber in Ford Motor’s brakes cannot cause mesothelioma. Defense counsel noted that Putt admitted in his testimony that he was exposed to asbestos from other automakers’ vehicles and from the replacement brakes he installed in Ford vehicles. Counsel also noted that Putt admitted that he was exposed to asbestos while working for various gas companies. Defense counsel maintained that if Ford Motor did contribute to the causation and risk of Putt’s mesothelioma, then those other companies contributed as well., Putt was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. He underwent numerous cycles of chemotherapy. He was then placed on an immunotherapy medication. Putt’s esophagus was pushed out of position as a result of his illness. He has difficulty swallowing and requires a feeding tube. Putt’s expert pulmonologist testified that the average mesothelioma patient has a life expectancy of 18 months from the time of his or her diagnosis. Putt claimed that he was fairly active prior to his diagnosis, in that he enjoyed traveling, spending time with his grandchildren, gardening and taking care of his backyard. He claimed that, due to his illness, he can barely walk or leave his home. He never returned to his job. The parties stipulated that Putt’s past medical expenses and lost earnings totaled $500,000. Putt sought recovery of that amount, unspecified amounts for past and future noneconomic damages, and punitive damages. His wife, Janet Putt, filed a derivative claim seeking recovery for loss of consortium. Defense counsel asked the jury to award nothing for punitive damages, arguing that Ford Motor had already learned its lesson and that the company has greatly changed since the 1960s and 1970s.