Plaintiff, Unimin and Supplier at Odds over Duty to Warn in N.D. Silica Case
October 26, 2010
DOCUMENTS
- Plaintiff's Opposition
- Summary Judgment Motion
- Unimin Brief
FARGO, N.D. - A former North Dakota sandblaster has opposed a motion for summary judgment by the company that supplied silica to his employer, arguing that the supplier failed to provide adequate warnings on the product, which it allegedly repackaged after receiving it from Unimin Corp. Waclawik v. Aearo Company, et al., No. 09-08-C-4010 (N.D. Dist. Ct., Cass Cty.).
Jim Waclawik says in an Oct. 15 opposition brief filed in Cass County District Court that Bladholm Brothers Culvert Co.'s owed him a common law duty to warn of risks associated with its silica and that the company specifically sold it …
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
HarrisMartin’s Artificial Stone Silicosis Epidemic Litigation Conference
January 10, 2025 - Long Beach, CA
The Westin Long Beach