Introduction
related attorneys

An appellate court in Pennsylvania recently upheld a $1.3 million award against welding firm Hobart Brothers Co., following a challenge that alleged an expert witness had run afoul of a recent state high court decision rejecting the “any exposure” theory.
Our mesothelioma lawyers are pleased to hear that the court did not apply that ruling in an overly broad fashion, as it has been feared a significant blow to asbestos exposure plaintiffs throughout the state.
Similar challenges to the “any exposure” theory of asbestos have been made by asbestos defendants across the country, alleging that mere exposure of any amount is not enough to prove liability. (A similar case, Dixon v. Ford Motor Co. established the same precedent in Maryland last year.) Courts’ rejection of the theory requires plaintiffs to show a more extensive history of exposure. This is despite the fact that medical research has definitively shown that no amount of exposure to asbestos is safe for humans.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the “any exposure” theory of asbestos causation in May 2012, with a 53-page ruling regarding a lawsuit initially filed in 2005. The plaintiff in that product liability action had alleged that Allied Signal Inc. and Ford Motor Co., among others, had exposed him to toxic, asbestos-containing products, such as brake linings, in the course of his 44-year career as an automotive mechanic. His case was among a number of similar others that were pending.
The defendants in the case had anticipated that the plaintiffs would rely on the “any exposure” theory (also sometimes referred to as “any breath” or “any fiber” legal theory, and preemptively filed a series of global motions challenging the admissibility of such claims).
After six years of legal wrangling, the state’s high court ruled 6-0 that the “any exposure” theory is a hypothesis, and should not be accepted as definitive proof.
That brings us to the most recent case. In Donoughe v. Lincoln Electric Co. and Hobart Brothers Co., the defendant was a welder who worked at a railroad shop for about three years in the mid-1970s. During his time there, he repaired air brakes and a number of products containing asbestos. The plaintiff, before he died of mesothelioma, testified that he was exposed to and inhaled the dust from the welding rods as they were removed from his containers.
At the jury trial, at which the victim’s wife assumed the primary role of plaintiff for her loss of consortium, the court awarded her $1.3 million. However, that verdict was appealed, alleging the plaintiff had relied on the “any exposure” theory.
The appellate court, however, ruled that the causation expert tapped by the plaintiffs at trial adequately established a connection between the worker’s exposure history and his fatal condition.
This case highlights again the importance for plaintiff attorneys to thoroughly establish a case for causation.
Additional Resources:
Donoughe v. Hobart Brothers Co. and Lincoln Electric Co., In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
More Blog Entries:
Mesothelioma Patients vs. Insurance Companies – Fighting for the True Victims, March 4, 2013, Mesothelioma Lawyer Blog
Featured Articles
our attorneys
Client Experiences
When individuals and families face the challenges of mesothelioma and asbestos exposure—coping with complex treatments, escalating costs, and emotional strain—they turn to Ferraro Law for clarity, guidance, and steadfast support. Through meticulous case preparation, empathetic counsel, and strategic representation, our attorneys build compelling cases that secure meaningful settlements to cover medical expenses, provide financial relief, and offer a path toward stability during difficult times.
5 Stars!! Berta, I want you to know you have the patience of a saint. It is not easy working with the public. I know firsthand. You take your time to explain so that the person understands what you are saying & if there is a problem you get to the bottom of it and come up with the answer as to why – problem solved. You are professional (very). Thank you for your time & energy you spent with me. Hopefully, management will recognize your work ethics. People like you are hard to find. You are an asset to the law firm.
Wishing you all the Best,
Bernardine Brown
Bernadine B.

5 Stars, I have been a client of The Ferraro law Firm for 24 years and everyone has been very helpful. When I had a question, it was answered promptly and without all the legalese. I would recommend the Ferraro Law Firm and attorney Jose Becerra because the entire team has been caring and professional. For many years, Nestor has been one of the best workers The Ferraro Law Firm has.
Lynn
5 STARS Thank God for the Ferraro Law firm. Every time I call to speak with my Attorney, Marc Kunen, he and his assistants are always helpful and take the time to answer my questions. I highly recommend The Ferraro Law Firm. The Ferraro Law Firm is the mouthpiece for those of us who need help.
Reverend Henry
My father passed away from mesothelioma and The Ferraro Law Firm has been there for me and my family for over 10 years. Our attorney, Aleksandra Sikorska, and Nestor in the settlements department will get the job done and are very kind and compassionate.
Michelle
Free Case Consultation
Our Trial and Appellate Attorneys Are Ready to Fight for You
If you were seriously injured, remember that it is crucial to choose the right law firm to represent your interests. We have been doing this for more than three decades, and have the resources you need to challenge any opponent!
Free Consultation








Disclaimer: The information on this website and our social media channels is for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.