Kinsman argued that given industry knowledge, Unocal should have warned Kinsman's employer or adopted various safety measures. But Unocal argued that Kinsman was not exposed to levels of asbestos that were considered unsafe at the time. Kinsman, in closing argument, pointed to the lack of evidence that Unocal complied with the industry standards, as well as testimony questioning the validity of those standards. Kinsman submitted his case on two theories of liability: first, a premises liability theory, that Unocal was negligent in the use, maintenance, or management of the areas where Kinsman worked; second, that Unocal was negligent in the exercise of retained control over the methods of the work or the manner of the work performed by Kinsman. It assigned Unocal 15 percent of the fault in causing Kinsman's mesothelioma, with the remaining 85 percent of fault attributable to "all others," and awarded Kinsman over $3 million in compensatory damages against Unocal.

Download full case here.