Rhode Island requires that plaintiffs meet a high standard of product identification, proving that they were actually exposed to products manufactured by or distributed by the defendants. A look at recent Rhode Island court decisions illustrates these principles.
3/2008 - LaPointe v. 3M Company et al: Homasote, a defendant in the case, moved for summary judgment, alleging that the defendant had not met the threshold obligation of product identification. LaPointe stated in affidavit that he was uncertain whether sheetrock he had worked with was a Homasote product. The court ruled against the defendant, permitting the case to go forward, concluding with the statement "this Court reiterates that the questions of whether the Plaintiff was ever exposed to asbestos by working near the Defendant's product or whether such exposure was the cause of Plaintiff's injury are questions for the jury to determine."
3/2008 - LaPointe v. 3M Company et al: Homasote, a defendant in the case, moved for summary judgment, alleging that the defendant had not met the threshold obligation of product identification. LaPointe stated in affidavit that he was uncertain whether sheetrock he had worked with was a Homasote product. The court ruled against the defendant, permitting the case to go forward, concluding with the statement "this Court reiterates that the questions of whether the Plaintiff was ever exposed to asbestos by working near the Defendant's product or whether such exposure was the cause of Plaintiff's injury are questions for the jury to determine."
