1 .
refid# KZxQLo0x67gYxOpegpGRXvB21 page
1 mesothelioma. 2 For the general public, of course, it is 3 1.0; and for automobile repair, which means garage 4 mechanics, the risk is about .65. 5 Q Let me ask you that -- a question about 6 that. 7 That is below 1, correct?
refid# ypvjNN2OdY07yxgQzgRQjZ5o21 page
1 these cases, didn't he?
refid# G6N8j6w71xR1jEYYRnL85km8x1 page
1 Thank you very much, Dr.
refid# 37JVORYGJJqJ24x419jOQzYDx1 page
Page 3546 1 Isn't it also true that in the Teta study -- * 2 A Teta. 3 Q Teta, thank you -- the proportions or the 4 proportion, excuse me, of mesotheliomas not associated 5 with some form of asbestos exposure was about 15 6 percent?
refid# qd32rjvpnMqRp7BE6Om8mR9Dq1 page
Page 3565 1 Now, you were mentioning before -- these 2 studies, the Hong Kong study, the Finland study, these 3 are all studies, most of them done in the 1980s, 4 correct?
refid# DvRrnRydVdNm8pYQjadqMpdQ1 page
1.
refid# pmQxoy6y1w1GVKvev0gYg49w71 page
Page 3673 1 It says primarily occupational exposures. 2 (Whereupon, laughter ensued.) 3 Q Which means that the source of the asbestos 4 exposure from brake linings is in an occupational 5 setting -6 A Absolutely, kidding aside. 7 Q rather than necessarily being out on the 8 street when somebody is coming to a stop at a stop 9 sign?
refid# JNwaLqy23qr7rJk5OrbObJx6e1 page
1 that job is plaintiff's investigation is continuing.
refid# 2j8ozZnOR2rGKqaZv1Qq3GK071 page
Page 3780 1 I am not persuaded that I ought not submit 2 that to the trier of fact. 3 As both of these cases have been presented, 4 they have been presented under two possible theories. 5 One of negligence and one of strict 6 liability.
refid# 0JLOa3Xebw8kxV73K78aOX56M1 page
Page 3711 1 Kaylo, and I just don't think they have any relevance 2 to the case against Ford. 3 THE COURT: Do I hear any comments?
refid# 8mg10g1XeJ2yp6N38KGo7XQ51 page
1 was so shut down by the opacification and the tumor Page 3944 2 running, that he couldn't breathe with the fluids 3 through his lung. 4 THE LAW CLERK: Five minutes, counsel. 5 MR.
refid# BvdRY6K0deNm0YY7NzbJxYMz41 page
Page 3964 1 this, I thought maybe it makes some sense to see what 2 the plaintiffs' own experts had to say about the five 3 reasons that I talked about with you in opening 4 statement. 5 After all, the experts I put on are going to 6 agree with those reasons, but what I did was I went 7 back and looked at the trial transcript to see what 8 the plaintiffs' own experts had to say on these 9 points, and it is interesting, in a lot of instances 10 they agreed with those five reasons. 11 Now, I want to be very clear with you.
refid# 9XzzgXv8R3Embgy0nmqjvnNq1 page
1 them out to begin their deliberations.
refid# 0Jaob8opEZjQOo55NLg83vYLb1 page
1 Q Now, you mentioned that there was an Page 1792 2 additional attempt at a thoracentesis, but was that in 3 May of 1993?
refid# DD4nrNdg0apBK7XMYZ83EobJM1 page