In the late 1960s and early 1970s, plaintiff Michael Sutherland began working as a drywaller for several companies throughout Southern California, during which he worked with was materials such as stucco, joint compound, roofing cement, and piping. In April 2012, Sutherland, then 61, was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma,which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that affects the lining of the lungs and that often stems from exposure to asbestos. Sutherland claimed that he developed the disease as a result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products that he worked with and around as a drywaller. Sutherland sued various manufacturers, suppliers and distributors of the asbestos-containing products that he allegedly used. Sutherland alleged that these defendant entities were negligent in the defective design of their respective products, and in their failure to warn of the presence and dangers of cancer-causing asbestos in their respective products. He also claimed the defendants were strictly liable for his exposure to asbestos. Some of the defendant entities resolved the claims against them prior to trial, some of the entities were dismissed, and other entities received summary judgments in their favor. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against the sole remaining defendant, Highland Stucco and Lime Products Inc. Sutherland’s counsel contended that Sutherland was exposed to chrysotile asbestos from Highland’s stucco products. Counsel argued that Highland made a dangerous stucco product in that the product did not meet minimum safety expectations per the consumer expectation test or the risk-benefit analysis test. Counsel further argued that Highland knew, or should have known, of the dangers of asbestos, but failed to warn of these dangers. Highland’s counsel argued that Sutherland did not work with the subject product. Counsel also argued that even if Sutherland was exposed to asbestos from Highland’s stucco product, his exposure was minimal and could not have caused his mesothelioma., Sutherland was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma at the age of 61, in April 2012. He was subsequently treated by a physician, who is the founder and Director of the UCLA Comprehensive Mesothelioma Program. The treating physician performed a flexible bronchoscopy, a left exploratory posterolateral thoracotomy, a radical left parietal pleurectomy, a complete pulmonary decortication, a partial resection of the diaphragm with complex reconstruction, a dissection of the hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes, and a transthoracic ligation of the thoracic duct. Thereafter, Sutherland underwent 25 sessions of radiation therapy. The plaintiffs’ cell biology expert testified to the physiological design and function of the lungs, the effect of asbestos on the lungs and other parts of the body, and the body’s defense mechanisms. He also testified about all the forms of asbestos and its ability to cause mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s causation expert testified to Sutherland’s exposure to asbestos over his lifetime, including the specific exposures Sutherland had to Highland’s stucco, and how those exposures significantly contributed to the cause of Sutherland’s mesothelioma. He also testified about the historical knowledge of the potential health hazards of asbestos. The causation expert further testified to Sutherland’s medical treatment and to the disease process of mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s economics expert testified regarding economic damages, including Sutherland’s loss of earnings, social security, and household services. Sutherland’s wife, Suszi Sutherland, sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium.