From September 1976 to March 1977, P installed pipes for Christeve Corporation (Christeve). His job involved cutting and beveling asbestos-cement pipe manufactured by the Johns-Manville Corporation (Johns-Manville). The process released dust and P worked without respiratory protection. P developed mesothelioma and sued Ds. D's liability is at issue and turns on whether sufficient evidence shows it was the source of the pipes. Keenan Pipe and Supply, a wholesale distributor, sold asbestos-cement pipes between 1965 and 1983. In 1977, it changed its name to Keenan Supply. The logo for both Keenan Pipe and Supply and Keenan Supply was the letter “K” drawn to resemble a straight pipe and an angled pipe, enclosed in a circle. Successor Keenan retained no sales records or invoices from the relevant period. Its representative testified the company logo was originally rendered in green and white, then changed in the 1970s to red and white. The witness also acknowledged what appeared to be a copy of a Keenan invoice, which bore Keenan's name and logo. He agreed that Keenan would have sent a sales invoice to its customers. Christeve's bookkeeper testified that when Christeve closed in 2001, she retained no documents related to the McKinleyville project. She remembered the logo of Keenan Pipe and Supply as “the K with a circle around it.” Asked why, she replied: “Because I know that we dealt with them, and [the logo] was unique, and I like it.” Foreman John Glamuzina was P's supervisor and he recalled the asbestos pipe that was used on the McKinleyville project. He testified about receiving materials delivered to the worksite. He would check the load and the paperwork to make sure the supplies listed matched what was being delivered. If the information was correct, he signed the invoice and retained a copy, which he turned in to the site office. He did remember seeing D on invoices but could not “recall exactly” how P's name was printed or how many times he saw the name on invoices. He testified he did not see names of any other suppliers and explained that “[w]hen you're working out in the field, you're in a hurry … .” D moved to exclude any reference by Glamuzina to D invoices on grounds of hearsay. The court held the evidence was not hearsay but merely circumstantial evidence of identity. It held that the evidence fell under an exception as the statement of a party opponent. It admitted Glamuzina's testimony as to the name and logo he saw printed on the invoices given to him when pipes were delivered. A judgment of $1,626,517.82 was entered against Keenan. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Glamuzina's descriptions of the invoices were hearsay.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.