EDWARD E. HARTLEY

Contact

Address 275 Battery Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone 415.288.9800
Fax 415.288.9801
Asbestos Fax 415.288.9802
Email eeh@hassard.com Download Vcard

Practice Areas

Toxic Tort Litigation

Asbestos Litigation

General Civil Litigation

Business and Commercial Law

Common Interest Developments

Intellectual Property

Premises and Retailer Defense Products Liability

Environmental Torts

Education

Golden Gate University, J.D.

University of Hawaii, B.S.

Bar Admissions

California 1986
Northern District of CA 1986
Southern District of CA 1996
Eastern District of CA 2005
Ninth Circuit 1986

Mr. Hartley’s primary professional experience is in defending toxic tort cases for product manufacturers and premises owners, where he has experience in all phases of the defense of such cases. Mr. Hartley has tried ten cases to verdict and has briefed or argued four cases before the California Court of Appeals.

Mr. Hartley also has more than 25 years of experience in a wide variety of civil litigation matters, including personal injury, property damage, contractual, environmental compliance, professional negligence, construction, and homeowner association law. Mr. Hartley has represented clients with local, regional, and national interests

Trial Experience

Williamson v. Plant Insulation, San Francisco, California, 1991, (2nd chair). This living lung cancer case was reverse bifurcated, with the first phase devoted to whether or not plaintiff had lung cancer caused by asbestos. The jury found that it was. However, based on industrial hygiene testimony the client was dismissed due to lack of evidence of exposure to the client’s product. This case was later the subject of a published appellate court opinion regarding the impact on a judgment where the plaintiff passes away after verdict, but before judgment is entered.

Richie v. Kaiser Gypsum, San Francisco, California, 1992, (1st chair). This wrongful death lung cancer case was tried twice to hung juries. The client was a manufacturer of drywall joint compound. The first trial combined liability and causation. Liability was alleged to be due to the presence of decorative ceiling texture in numerous tract homes that plaintiff testified he removed. While the jury found that plaintiff’s lung cancer was caused by asbestos, they hung after several days deliberation on whether the sample evidence was consistent with the formulas for the client’s products. After a hiatus of about six weeks, the second case was tried on the issue of liability. After a three week trial, in which more than a dozen original owners of the houses at issue were subpoenaed to testify whether they had their decorative ceilings removed while they lived in the houses at issue, the jury hung after deliberation for nearly one week. The court ultimately granted a directed verdict in the client’s favor, which was upheld on appeal in a published opinion.

DeNola v. Kaiser Gypsum, San Francisco, California, 1996, (2nd chair).This wrongful death mesothelioma case involved allegations that the client product (drywall joint compound) was present in homes the decedent worked in. Plaintiff presented material science testimony that attempted to reverse engineer a sample and comparing the ingredients to a formula. The jury found that the plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of proof that the product at issue was present.