Laux v. Akebono Brake Corp.

"Evidence must be present that asbestos is contained in the defendant’s product, not just the industry as a whole." See, e.g., Austin, v. A.J. Zinda Co., 196 Or App 262, 269-270, 101 P3d 918 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005).

Laux appealed a judgment of summary judgment in Yamaha’s favor on the decedent’s behalf and argued the lower court was wrong when determining that Laux failed to present “evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the specific Yamaha motorcycles serviced at Fred’s Honda were equipped with asbestos-containing brakes.” Yamaha argued the court was correct because “a juror could not conclude—without impermissible speculation—that all Yamaha motorcycle products serviced at [decedent’s] workplace contained asbestos.” A plaintiff may not rely on a generalized idea that asbestos is in the industry, generally, in order to survive summary judgment. "Evidence must be present that asbestos is contained in the defendant’s product, not just the industry as a whole." See, e.g., Austin, v. A.J. Zinda Co., 196 Or App 262, 269-270, 101 P3d 918 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005). The Court held there was no issue of material fact, thus the lower court was correct by granting Yamaha summary judgment. The Court reasoned that the evidence presented was too vague for a fact-finder to infer asbestos was in Yamaha’s products and the evidence was presented from an aftermarket catalog which was dated a decade after Laux’s relevant time period. Affirmed.