A three-judge appeals panel in Pennsylvania ruled that prohibition of “any exposure” causation theories did not apply in an asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit filed against Ford Motor Co. The ruling effectively affirmed a jury’s decision to award $994,800 to husband and wife plaintiffs Richard and Joyce Rost.

According to the asbestos lawsuit, Richard Rost worked at a Ford dealership in 1950, where the vast majority of vehicles he serviced were Fords. He claimed that from 1945 to 1950, Ford brakes and clutches were 40 percent to 60 percent asbestos in weight. He alleges that other mechanics at the dealership were responsible for sanding brakes, removing brake drums, and fixing clutches. All these activities allegedly released dangerous asbestos fibers into the air.

Ford appealed the court’s denial of its post-trial motion for judgment, arguing that Richard Rost should be required to supply an expert opinion that he was exposed to Ford products with sufficient amount of asbestos to cause mesothelioma. Ford contends that even if Richard Rost had been exposed to asbestos, it would be impossible to determine Ford’s share of responsibility.

Judge Jack A. Panella wrote that Rost’s experts gave sufficient evidence that the plaintiff’s exposure to Ford’s asbestos-containing brakes was substantial in the development of his mesothelioma.

“While it is true that the ‘every exposure’ theory does not, by itself, meet the standard for establishing substantial causation in a legal sense, this record is more than sufficient to establish its general scientific legitimacy,” the judge said.

The judge clarified that the issue is not whether a product was defective because it contained asbestos, but whether the defendant’s product contained asbestos, whether the plaintiff was exposed to it and whether that exposure caused the plaintiff’s mesothelioma.

Ford is the only remaining defendant in this asbestos exposure lawsuit. The other defendants, Ingersoll-Rand, General Electric, and Westinghouse all settled.