Issue: Longview Fibre is sued for damages arising from the exposure of its worker to asbestos.
Longview Fibre operated a mill where Shellenberger worked
Doctors instructed Shellenberger to stop working
Shellenberger was suffering from asbestos exposure
Clouds of dust was present at the work area of Shellenberger when he threw asbestos bags open (Baker W. Gerald A. 2004).
Shellenberger might have been affected by asbestos when the company was engaging in blow downs.
Apparatus hoods and tube wrappers in the industry had asbestos.
The pipe wrappers were at long last replaced with coverings that did not have asbestos Longview Fibre used products containing asbestos.
Report showed that people working with asbestos were prone to lung disease.
Longview had a document that contained a hazards manual warning employees. The vice president of Longview fibre testified about asbestos and its health effects.
Longview fibre put in asbestos disclosure controls in its workplace in pursuant of industrial protection and health.
Rules were established to limit the levels of asbestos that could be carried in the air and for secure asbestos handling.
Sampling done by Longview Fibre shows that Shellenberger’s working area did not have high levels of asbestos (Baker W. Gerald A. 2004).
It was affirmed that a reasonable fact finder could not conclude that Longview Fibre had actual knowledge of certain injury.
The trail court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove Longview fibre acted out of deliberate intent.
The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Shellenberger had pulmonary fibrosis could have many different causes.
Summary judgment was made because there was no genuine reason that Longview Fibre was aware of the effects of exposing its workers to asbestos and this means that there was no material fact that the moving party is liable to judgment as provided by law (Baker W. Gerald A. 2004).
Holding: The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove Longview acted out of deliberate intent. In addition, not everyone who inhales asbestos develops lung problem and further more, asbestosis could have various causes and not necessarily asbestos.
Reasoning: The court interpreted deliberate intention which showed that Longview Fibre did not deliberately cause a lung problem to its workers by exposing them to asbestos. There was also insufficient evidence that Longview Fibre possessed actual knowledge of injury to its workers and thus the company did not deliberately injure its workers (Baker W. Gerald A. 2004).
Lau L. NVL Laboratories Inc. Appellant V. Eco Compliance Corporation Respondent. 2005. Seattle. WA
Issue: NVL Laboratories were satisfied with the cheque from Eco Compliance and that is why they deposited it
Eco hired NVL laboratories to analyze samples collected from various building projects
Eco compliance sent a cheque to NVL laboratories with an amount less than the total invoiced (Lau L. 2005).
The cheque had an accompanying letter stating that the amount was full and final payment
NVL laboratories deposited the cheque thus showing an accord of satisfaction
NVL accepted the Eco’s partial payment of an unliquidated claim
NVL performs laboratory analysis of samples that are suspected on containing hazardous materials
NVL billed Eco for $42,754.50 but Eco sent a cheque for $ 13,531.19 (Lau L. 2005).
Eco claimed that NVL had billed at an incorrect rate
NVL sent a letter demanding payment for the rest of the amount but Eco refused to pay the remaining balance
Eco claimed that NVL’s depositing of the cheque showed satisfaction
Eco refused to pay NVL for the remaining amount and NVL sued Eco for the remaining balance
The trial court granted Eco’s motion a summary judgment on the ground that the company deposited the cheque because it was satisfied with the amount given and thus the court concluded that an accord and satisfaction did exist.
There was no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
NVL has to prove the existence of a bona fide dispute, agreement to settle the dispute and performance of the agreement
Acceptance of liquidated debt by a debtor at a higher amount than the tendered but unilaterally declaring payments to be full and final means that even if the creditor accepts the payment, no accord and satisfaction will be found unless there is proof of new consideration given (Lau L. 2005).
The amount owed to NVL was in dispute because of the assertion of overcharging for certain work and the setoff for NVL’s negligence on the Kaplan building project
Summary judgment was granted because Eco tendered its cheque as full and final payment and NVL deposited the cheque and this shows that NVL laboratories were satisfied with the case
The court concluded an accord and satisfaction existed because NVL deposited the cheque although Eco tendered it as full and final payment while it did not contain the actual amount (Lau L. 2005).
Summary judgment is granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Eco tendered its cheque as final and full payment and NVL deposited the cheque thus the reasoning for the summary judgment was based on the satisfaction that existed in NVL laboratories which made them to deposit the cheque (Lau L. 2005).
Baker W. Gerald A. (2004). Shellenberger Appelant VS Longview fibre Co. et al. Respondents.
Lau L. (2005). NVL Laboratories Inc. Appellant V. Eco Compliance Corporation Respondent.