In November 2017, plaintiff Randolph Morton, a livery vehicle’s driver and a former engineer and in his 70s, was diagnosed with stage-IV lung cancer. He believed his disease was caused by asbestos exposure. Morton sued the producer of brake lining he had handled as an engineer, Pneumo Abex L.L.C., the successor-in-interest to Pneumo Abex Corp. and Abex Corp.; the manufacturer of an Ammco brake grinder, Hennessy Industries Inc., the successor to Ammco Tools Inc.; and various other companies that were believed to have manufactured, distributed and/or worked with asbestos-containing products to which Morton was allegedly exposed. Morton alleged that the defendants defectively designed their respective products and failed to provide warnings that disclosed the hazards of asbestos. He also alleged that the defendants’ respective products failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect and that the risks of the respective products’ designs outweighed their benefits. The majority of the claims were disposed of by dismissals or by settlements for undisclosed sums. The matter ultimately proceeded to trial against Hennessy Industries and Pneumo Abex only. Morton claimed that he was exposed to asbestos while using a brake grinder designed and manufactured by Ammco Tools. While the grinder did not contain asbestos, Morton claimed that it was designed to grind automotive brake shoes that often contained asbestos. He further claimed that he utilized the grinder during a high school shop class in the 1960s and that Pneumo Abex produced brake lining that caused his asbestos exposure. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that medical articles published in the 1960s demonstrated that asbestos exposure caused cancer and was a risk to automotive mechanics. Counsel argued that since the scientific and medical communities knew that grinding brakes could lead to asbestos exposure, the machinery should have been designed to minimize the risk of users breathing in asbestos dust and that both the brake grinder and liners should have contained proper warnings. Defense counsel argued that the articles published in the 1960s only dealt with the alleged dangers faced by textile workers and mechanics, and that they did not mention brake mechanics. Counsel also argued that brake mechanics are not at risk of developing lung cancer from asbestos and that, even if they were at risk, Morton’s limited asbestos exposure from brakes was insufficient to increase his risk of developing lung cancer. Defense counsel further argued that Morton’s lung cancer was not caused by asbestos, but, instead, was caused by a genetic mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor., Morton was diagnosed with stage-IV lung cancer that had metastasized to his liver. He underwent chemotherapy and received weekly intravenous nutritional therapy beginning in February 2018. As of February 2019, Morton had received 30 Myers’ cocktails (an intravenous vitamin infusion that enhances the immune system and reduces fatigue), 68 high-dose vitamin C treatments, and six glutathione injections. His prognosis is terminal. Morton sought recovery of past and future medical and nursing expenses, damages for future loss of Social Security benefits, damages for past and future loss of household services, damages for past and future pain and suffering, and punitive damages. His wife filed a derivative claim seeking recovery for her loss of consortium.