Asbestos Cases A–Z: Q

14 decisions whose name begins with Q.

• Quarles v. Advocate Mines Limited (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2006). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Geronia Quarles against Advocate Mines Limited, rejecting the mining company's challenges to the liability findings, causation, expert testimony and damages.
• Queen v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2017). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the executor's claims against it with prejudice, because there was no evidence Queen was exposed to a Union Carbide product.
• Quick v. Murphy Oil Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1994). The appeals court reversed the $46,000 contribution judgment that the trial court had entered for Owens Corning Fiberglas against Garlock, because Quick's exposure to Garlock's asbestos products was trivial and not a cause in fact of his asbestosis.
• Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The district court denied Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose's motion for summary judgment, so the estate of Ronald Quirin's negligence claims against them go forward.
• Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2015). The court granted summary judgment to Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose on the wife's loss of consortium claim because his exposure to their products ended before the marriage, but denied it to Georgia-Pacific.
• Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert Dr. Millette's testimony and work practice studies, and granted it only as to the Tyndall lighting videotapes, which plaintiff agreed not to use.
• Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The court granted in part and denied in part both Daubert motions: it barred defense experts from relying on the Killian and Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene tests, allowed reliance on the Armour tests, required a hearing for the Kendall and Fullam tests, and let plaintiff's expert Pauly testify about the 1950s testing but not endorse the Millette and Longo studies.
• Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert testimony and argument that each and every exposure to asbestos caused Mr. Quirin's mesothelioma (as moot for Dr. Brody), so the plaintiff estate prevailed on the motion.
• Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The district court denied Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose's motions to bar the expert reports and testimony of Dr. Millette and Dr. Brodkin, so the plaintiff's expert evidence was admitted.
• Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The district court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the estate of Ronald Quirin may proceed with its negligence claims against Crane Co., except that Crane Co. had no duty to warn about insulation, pipe covering or cement it did not supply.
• Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. (Arizona Supreme Court, 2018). The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Reynolds Metal, Alcoa and Reywest, holding they owed no duty to Quiroz for take-home asbestos exposure; it vacated the court of appeals opinion in part because it disagreed with some of its reasoning.
• Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. (Arizona Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2016). The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Reynolds Metal Company, holding it owed no duty of care to the Quirozes for Dr. Quiroz's take-home asbestos exposure.
• Quiroz v. BNSF Railway Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for BNSF Railway Company, ruling that the plaintiffs (Quiroz and the Thoms family) failed to raise a triable issue that Thoms was exposed to asbestos during his BNSF employment.
• Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (Virginia Supreme Court, 2018). On a question certified by a federal district court, the Supreme Court of Virginia answered that an employer owes a duty of care to an employee's family member allegedly exposed to asbestos from the employee's work clothes, favoring the estate of Wanda Quisenberry over Huntington Ingalls (the Shipyard); three justices dissented.