Proving the Cancer Connection in the Courtroom By Ronald Motley

Our plain-English summary of Proving the Cancer Connection in the Courtroom By Ronald Motley, by R. Motley (1979).

The study

• Author: R. Motley
• Published: Trial, March 13th 1979
• Type of article: Journal article
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This article, from the legal magazine Trial, was a legal commentary, not a scientific study, and reported no new medical data. It discussed legal theories that can be used in lawsuits claiming that a product or substance caused a person's cancer. The author discussed manufacturers' duties to test their products and to warn users of risks, and argued for a further duty to look for substitute products. The author drew on court decisions, including Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, an asbestos insulation case. There the Fifth Circuit held that testing must be commensurate with the dangers involved, and that an asbestos manufacturer could not rely on insulation subcontractors to warn of the danger. The author wrote that one asbestos manufacturer admitted in discovery that no tests were run until 1968 on whether users of asbestos insulation were exposed to dust above industry standards. The author also wrote that depositions showed asbestos was virtually eliminated from insulation products by 1972. The author contended that producers of a widely used substance that some medical investigators consider carcinogenic have a duty to seek non-toxic substitutes.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: legal commentary on theories of product liability in cancer cases, based on court decisions and legal treatises; not a scientific study
• Who was studied: No study population; the article discussed court decisions, including Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (Fifth Circuit, asbestos insulation products), Gonzalez v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., and Patterson v. Orangeburg Fertilizer Co.
• Exposure: Toxic and potentially cancer-causing substances in general, with asbestos insulation products as the main asbestos example
• Main results:
  • The author discussed manufacturers' duties to test their products and to warn users of risks
  • The author reported that in Borel the court held that the extent of testing must be commensurate with the dangers involved
  • The author reported that in Borel the court held that an asbestos manufacturer could not rely upon insulation subcontractors or others to warn of the danger in its product
  • The author wrote that one asbestos manufacturer admitted in discovery that no tests were run until 1968 to determine whether users of asbestos-containing insulation products were exposed to dust levels exceeding industry-accepted standards
  • The author wrote that depositions of research and development officials showed asbestos was virtually eliminated from insulation products by 1972
  • The author stated that compliance with governmental labelling regulations does not, as a matter of law, satisfy the common law duty to warn of foreseeable risks
• The authors' conclusion: The author contended that where a substance is considered carcinogenic by some medical investigators and its use is widespread, its producers have a duty, commensurate with the risks, to seek non-toxic substitutes
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that environmental pollution class actions and suits based on violations of federal pollution statutes were outside the article's scope

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Fibreboard Corporation, Discovery, Deposition, Carcinogenic.

Browse return to medical research.