## Facts

- James D. Lokey, a Virginia State Trooper, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2005 and died in 2007.
- From about 1965–1966 for roughly 7.5–8 years, Lokey’s duties included observing vehicle safety inspections at numerous garages.
- Mechanics commonly used compressed air to blow out brake debris; Lokey stood within about ten feet, inhaled visible dust, and worked in garages without specialized ventilation.
- Lokey received no respiratory protection and was not warned that breathing brake dust was hazardous.
- Lokey stated he was present during this process on Ford vehicles, including at a Ford dealership, and believed most inspected cars were American-made.
- Before becoming a trooper, Lokey worked as a pipefitter at a naval shipyard with asbestos-containing products, creating multiple potential exposure sources.
- The estate alleged asbestos in Bendix brakes (Honeywell as successor) installed on Ford and other vehicles contributed to Lokey’s disease; experts for both sides disputed causation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on causation using a “substantial contributing factor” standard rather than Virginia’s proximate-cause standard.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a properly instructed jury to find that defendants’ failure to warn was a proximate cause of Lokey’s mesothelioma despite other asbestos exposures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia held the causation instruction was erroneous because it used a “substantial contributing factor” formulation inconsistent with Virginia proximate-cause law.
- The court concluded the instructional error was not harmless given the central dispute over causation and multiple potential asbestos exposures.
- The court nevertheless held the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury, under correct instructions, to find that defendants’ failure to warn was a proximate cause of Lokey’s mesothelioma.
- The court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with proper proximate-cause instructions.

## Legal Principles

- In Virginia, proximate cause generally requires proof that the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s act or omission.
- Multiple concurring causes may each constitute proximate causes if each satisfies the “but-for” requirement in the sense recognized by Virginia law for concurrent causation.
- Jury instructions that replace Virginia proximate-cause requirements with “substantial contributing factor” language misstate the plaintiff’s burden and are reversible when causation is contested.
- In toxic-exposure cases, the existence of other significant exposures does not automatically defeat causation; the jury may still find a defendant’s conduct to be a proximate cause if supported by evidence under the correct standard.

## Conclusion

The court required use of Virginia’s proximate-cause standard rather than a “substantial contributing factor” test, reversed the plaintiff’s verdict due to erroneous causation instructions, and remanded for retrial while holding the evidence could support causation findings under proper instructions.


Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer, 285 Va. 141, 736 S.E.2d 724 (Va. 2013)