Facts

On Aug. 25, 2004, plaintiff Omotayo Fasuyi alleged that during his employment at Coliseum Lexus, he sustained skin discoloration spots on his forehead and left fingers after skin contact with Permatex Brake and Parts Cleaner. The brake cleaner was manufactured by defendant Apollo Industries Inc. and sold by defendant Permatex.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that he sustained injuries resulting in damages for medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the Permatex brake cleaner did not cause plaintiff's injury.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to trial, defendant Permatex offered $5,000 while defendant Apollo offered $3,000.

Damages

Plaintiff sought at least $15,000 in past/future medical damages and $65,090 in past/future loss of earnings damages. Plaintiff further sought at least $350,000 in pain and suffering.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

During the initial stages, plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the amount of $236,500 against Permatex. (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 692-693, fn. 7.) The appellate court reversed the judgment and ordered the trial court to vacate the default. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Prior to trial, defendants successfully moved to exclude four of plaintiff's experts from rendering an opinion on causation. Plaintiff's expert, Dr. David Fisher, opined that plaintiff sustained leukoderma secondary to exposure to benzene and xylene. However, defendants successfully disqualified Dr. Fisher from offering any additional opinions concerning the adequacy of the product warning on the brake cleaner or the material safety data sheets. Defendants' dermatology expert, Dr. Jack Resneck, testified that there was no basis from the facts of the case and the medical literature to support that plaintiff's condition was caused by chemicals. Defendants' economist expert opined that based upon his review of all the employment records and deposition testimony, plaintiff did not suffer a past loss of earnings claim nor that he would suffer any future loss of earnings claim, especially in light of the fact that his wages actually increased after the date of the alleged incident. FILING DATE: Aug. 1, 2006.

Deliberation

three hours

Length

five days