On Nov. 9, 2012, plaintiffs’ decedent Raymond Huckins, 77, died from complications related to mesothelioma, an aggressive, incurable cancer that often stems from exposure to asbestos. His family claimed that he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July 2, 2012, after years of inhaling asbestos dust spewed into the air while he machined asbestos-containing brake shoes using AMMCO brake shoe grinding machines. The decedent’s wife, Marylyn Huckins, acting individually and as the representative of her husband’s estate, and their two sons, Todd Huckins and Kevin Huckins, sued several manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products sold to the brake repair industry in Southern California during the years relevant to the decedent’s exposure to asbestos. The family alleged that the defendants were negligent and strict liable for the decedent’s exposure to asbestos, causing his wrongful death. Several of the manufacturers and suppliers named as defendants were either dismissed and/or resolved their cases with the Huckins family prior to opening statements at trial. The matter ultimately proceeded against only Hennessy Industries Inc. (as successor in interest to AMMCO Tools Inc.). Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that a brake lining arcing machine made by Hennessy’s predecessor in interest, AMMCO Tools Inc., released asbestos dust that contributed to causing the decedent’s mesothelioma. Counsel argued that AMMCO designed, manufactured and sold a brake shoe grinding machine that had the sole function of grinding asbestos-containing brake shoes by means of a sandpaper cylinder moving at high speeds, which released respirable asbestos dust from the brake shoes. Counsel also argued that the decedent used AMMCO grinders in his capacity as an automotive supply shop worker/owner, and was regularly exposed to asbestos dust spewed from them over a period of decades. Plaintiffs’ counsel presented evidence that AMMCO knew its brake grinder posed a health hazard as early as 1936, failed to perform any safety tests prior to putting it on the market, and yet advertised it as safe for many years. Counsel contended that AMMCO started manufacturing the brake grinders in 1950 and that the grinders employed a rudimentary, reusable porous cloth dust bag that had to be manually emptied by workers. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that in its advertisements from that era, AMMCO claimed the bag prevented “bothersome and dangerous flying dusts.” However, counsel contended that AMMCO first tested for asbestos dust release in 1973 and that the test results showed that workers were being exposed to millions of asbestos fibers despite the dust bag system. Counsel contended that as a result, the company designed a new dust-collector system. Plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that in patent applications for the new design, AMMCO described and acknowledged design defects in the original containment system, admitting it created a health hazard to workers. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that AMMCO never even tested its original dust bag system with regard to asbestos exposure and safety, so the company had no factual basis for its advertising safety claims about the original bag. Counsel also argued that even though AMMCO was aware that asbestos was dangerous prior to 1950, when it introduced the product, it nevertheless continued to sell the original porous cloth bag as a replacement product until at least 1983, if not later. In addition, counsel argued that AMMCO never contacted grinder owners to warn them of the dangers of using the old dust-collector system, never issued a recall of the grinders, never offered to recall the grinders or retrofit them with the new dust-collection system, and never put a warning on the replacement dust bags it continued to sell. Hennessy’s counsel argued that the AMMCO machine itself contained no asbestos, but merely grinded the asbestos products manufactured, sold, and distributed by others. Therefore, counsel argued that plaintiffs’ counsel could not establish the circumstances necessary for the imposition of negligence or strict liability on Hennessy for injury from products it neither made nor distributed. Hennessy’s counsel maintained that no such liability could legally be imposed unless the AMMCO machine’s sole intended purpose was to abrade asbestos-containing brake linings. However, that condition, Hennessy’s counsel argued, could not be demonstrated because the AMMCO machine had the capacity to abrade asbestos-free brake linings, which were available in the 1960’s and 1970’s. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, the defense’s argument was diminished when, in a similar case against Hennessy, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a summary judgment motion Hennessy had achieved, dismissing a claim similar to that being made by the Huckins family. (The other case was Michael Sherman v. Hennessy Industries Inc. B252566 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. JCCP4674)). The appeal, decided June 18, 2015, paved the way for the jury to make a determination of fault in the Huckins case, which was scheduled for trial in early July 2015. At trial, Hennessy’s counsel produced evidence that Hennessy had their equipment regularly tested by outside experts during the ’70’s and were informed that the use of the AMMCO machines did not produce any asbestos exposures in excess of the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits. Counsel noted that, nevertheless, Hennessy began using warning labels and placing instructions in their manuals. Thus, Hennessy’s counsel asked the jury to apportion such liability as it may find, if any, against the other entities not in the case, including former defendants., Raymond Huckins died on Nov. 9, 2012, at the age 77, from complications related to mesothelioma. He was initially diagnosed with the disease on July 2, 2012. His treatment was almost entirely palliative. The decedent was survived by his wife of over 50 years, Marylyn Huckins, and their two adult sons, Todd Huckins and Kevin Huckins. The Huckins family sought recovery of economic and non-economic damages related to the decedent’s wrongful death. Specifically, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award $14 million to Marylyn Huckins alone. Hennessy’s counsel asked the jury to render a defense verdict or, in the alternative, to award no more than economic damages plus, perhaps, a multiple of the economic damages for the non-economic damages.