An important decision regarding Ford liability was issued by Judge Hanna in Ohio. First, Ford has been playing games by attacking the authenticity of company documents submitted in opposition to summary judgment motions. Judge Hanna finds that all the exhibits submitted in opposition to our MSJ were supported by evidence supporting an inference of authenticity. . Second, Judge Hanna found that the evidence supported a triable issue of fact as to Ford’s “continued use of a braking system that required replacements brakes to include asbestos.” Thus, the court found that the product that Ford is responsible for is not only the OEM brakes and the replacement brakes it sold, but also Ford’s “braking system” that required the use of asbestos. Congratulations to Wayne Margolis and Chip Hickey who secured this victory
.IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ASBESTOS DOCKET
OPINION
JUDGE HARRY A. HANNA
Bettie Jane Raniolo, ct aI.,
Plaintiff,
v.
American Laundry Machinery,
Inc., ct aI.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No: 752429
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Exhibits A through S filed in opposition to
Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motion for summary judgment. It appears that these
exhibits bear sufficient evidence of authenticity to be admissible in opposition to a Rule
56 motion. They consist of excerpts from depositions or discovery responses filed in the
state courts of Califomia, Delaware, Maryland, New York and Texas by lawyers
purporting to represent Ford, along with govemment documents and other documents on
Ford Motor Company stationary.
These documents viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, would permit the
inference of some awareness on Ford’s part of the hazards of asbestos, the uncertainty of
that hazard, an insistence on continuing to use asbestos in its brakes into the 1990’s eer.
Ex F.), and continued use ora braking system that required replacement brakes to include
asbestos.
The motion for summary judgment is overruled.
So Ordered:
Judge Harry A. Hanna
