## Facts

- Timothy Shawn Bostic learned drywall mudding and sanding as a child and continued working around joint compound over many years.
- From 1967 to 1977, Georgia-Pacific manufactured joint compound that contained asbestos; the product was later reformulated to be asbestos-free.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that the Bostics used Georgia-Pacific joint compound most of the time while Timothy did drywall work, but Timothy also worked with other asbestos-containing joint compounds and had other potential asbestos exposures.
- Timothy was diagnosed with mesothelioma at age forty and died about a year later.
- Timothy’s estate and family sued Georgia-Pacific for wrongful death and survival damages, alleging Georgia-Pacific’s asbestos-containing joint compound caused his mesothelioma.
- Plaintiffs’ causation expert did not opine that Timothy would not have developed mesothelioma absent exposure specifically to Georgia-Pacific’s asbestos-containing joint compound, and instead relied on a cumulative (“every exposure”) theory.

## Issues

1. Whether legally sufficient evidence showed exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s asbestos-containing joint compound was a substantial factor (producing cause) of Timothy Bostic’s mesothelioma and death.
2. Whether the evidence supported the jury’s gross-negligence finding against Georgia-Pacific.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion regarding mistrial and new-trial rulings before entering final judgment on the verdict.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment that plaintiffs take nothing.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient on causation because plaintiffs did not present scientifically reliable, product-specific proof that exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s product was a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma.
- Because causation failed as a matter of law, the court did not need to resolve the remaining issues in a manner that affected the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas toxic-tort asbestos cases, a plaintiff must prove the defendant’s product was a producing cause: a substantial factor in bringing about the injury, and the injury would not have occurred without it.
- Evidence of exposure to a defendant’s asbestos-containing product, without more, is insufficient to establish legal causation when there are multiple possible sources of exposure.
- Causation evidence must provide a scientifically reliable basis to link the defendant’s product to the disease, including some showing of dose or exposure level sufficient to support a substantial-factor inference in light of other exposures.
- A generalized “every exposure” or “cumulative exposure” opinion, without product- and dose-related analysis, does not satisfy Texas substantial-factor causation standards.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals set aside the jury’s verdict and rendered a take-nothing judgment because plaintiffs relied on an “every exposure” causation theory and failed to present legally sufficient, product-specific, dose-related evidence that Georgia-Pacific’s asbestos-containing joint compound was a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma.


Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Bostic, 320 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010)