Law Articles

Return to Law Dictionary Index

Calif. Welders Sue Airco, Caterpillar, G.E. Over Welding Rod Fumes Exposure

Source: Business Wire
Published: August 09, 2005

Eighteen welding rod workers filed a class action lawsuit last month in Los Angeles Superior Court against Airco Inc., Caterpillar, Inc., General Electric Company and more than 55 other named defendants for alleged injuries caused by exposure to welding rod fumes.

The Plaintiffs claim they suffered serious neurological injuries as a consequence of exposure to welding fumes containing manganese, a substance medically recognized as toxic to the human central nervous system. In all, Plaintiffs’ complaints for damages allege 15 claims, including negligence, strict products liability, and fraud/deceit by suppression/concealment, involving welding products that were manufactured, sold, distributed, and/or promoted by Defendants.

According to the lawsuit, all of the Defendants were, at relevant times, manufacturers and sellers of welding products, large industrial consumers of welding rod products, and members of leading trade organizations, including the American Welding Society and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

The cases filed last month in Los Angeles Superior Court will next be coordinated with other similar cases which have been filed throughout California. The coordinated cases are being overseen by the Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw, California Superior Court, County of Alameda and are titled the "Welding Products Cases", Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4368 ("JCCP 4368").

"My health has been destroyed," said John John, age 62, from Los Angeles, CA and one of the plaintiffs who filed suit last month and who became a welder around 1964, "all because the powers that be in the welding industry didn't tell welders like me about the potential dangers of welding rod fumes or take any steps to protect us from toxic welding fumes."

The use of welding products and equipment in the welding process causes emission of fumes, most of which contain manganese. As noted in the lawsuit, since 1837, it has been medically recognized that manganese is toxic to the human central nervous system and that excessive levels in the human body can cause a progressive condition called manganism, a form of parkinsonism. Since then, evidence has accumulated that exposure to manganese fumes can also cause Parkinson's Disease, as well as other neuropsychological disorders.

According to the lawsuit: “From the 1930s forward, the Defendant manufacturers and their trade associations amassed critical data acknowledging that manganese in welding fumes is toxic and can cause neurological injuries. Yet, instead of making this information public, the companies allegedly withheld, misrepresented, suppressed and concealed this information from consumers. It was not until the late 1990s that the welding industry began to publish specific warnings about the dangers of exposure to manganese or to acknowledge that welding fume exposure can cause neurological injuries.”

The Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to welding fumes while using welding products and equipment or by being in close proximity to other persons using welding products. Their exposure occurred in an environment which did not have precautionary measures in place to protect them against the health hazards of welding fumes. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants suppressed the health and safety information concerning the hazards of manganese in welding fumes, established industry-wide specifications for precautionary product labels that failed to adequately warn workers of the dangers associated with manganese in welding fumes, opposed restrictions on the guidelines for manganese exposure levels established by various authorities, and provided misleading information concerning the health hazards of manganese welding rods, specifically with respect to inhalation of manganese in welding fumes.

The Plaintiffs are jointly represented by the Santa Monica, CA law firm of Greene Broillet & Wheeler, the Los Angeles, CA law firm of Panish, Shea & Boyle, LLP, the Los Angeles office of Kirk B. Bernard, and the San Francisco, CA law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. John John vs. A.O. Smith Corporation, et. al., Case No. BC337178.

Read Full Story at Business Wire

Return to Class Action Lawsuits

Return to Law Dictionary Index