An industry perspective on the Caesarstone verdict, fabrication safety, manufacturer liability, and the responsibilities of employers.
I don’t sell engineered quartz. I don’t particularly like the material, and I’ve long questioned its environmental credentials, especially when it’s promoted as a sustainable alternative to natural stone.
In other words, I don’t have a dog in this fight.
But a recent California jury verdict has me questioning how responsibility for worker safety is being assigned.
In October 2026, a Long Beach jury awarded approximately $67.7 million to a former stone fabrication worker suffering from silicosis. The jury assigned 69.1% of the responsibility to Caesarstone, the engineered stone manufacturer, and 30% to the fabrication shop where the worker was employed.
I find that allocation troubling.
Let me be clear from the beginning: silicosis is a devastating occupational disease. The worker in this case reportedly underwent a double-lung transplant. Nothing about questioning the verdict diminishes the seriousness of his illness, the suffering his family has endured, or his right to seek justice.
My concern is not whether the worker deserves compensation.
My concern is whether responsibility has been assigned in proportion to the actions and decisions that contributed to his exposure.
What 35 Years in the Stone Industry Has Taught Me About Fabrication Safety
I’ve worked in the natural stone industry for more than 35 years. During that time, I’ve visited fabrication facilities of virtually every description.
Some have been outstanding operations.
I’ve seen shops where equipment is properly maintained, dust-control systems are effective, fabrication procedures are carefully managed, and employee safety is clearly a priority.
These facilities demonstrate that management understands its responsibilities and is willing to invest in protecting its workers.
Unfortunately, I’ve also seen the opposite.
I’ve walked into shops where airborne dust was immediately noticeable, where housekeeping was inadequate, and where the potential for excessive exposure was obvious.
You don’t need to be an industrial hygienist to recognize that a shop filled with dust deserves serious attention. Determining actual exposure levels requires proper testing, but visible conditions can certainly raise concerns.
And these observations aren’t limited to engineered quartz fabrication. Natural stone fabrication also presents silica exposure hazards, particularly when working with materials containing substantial crystalline silica.
The important distinction is that different materials present different levels of risk, and those risks must be understood and controlled.
What I’ve learned is that workplace safety often comes down to management decisions.
The equipment purchased, the procedures established, the training provided, and the enforcement of those procedures are all controlled at the shop level.
A manufacturer may supply the material, but it doesn’t operate the fabrication facility.
That distinction matters.
Caesarstone Had Published Fabrication Safety Requirements
Before forming an opinion about the verdict, I looked into Caesarstone’s fabrication and safety documentation.
The company had published extensive guidance addressing the hazards associated with respirable crystalline silica.
Its documentation covered subjects including:
- Wet cutting and fabrication methods intended to reduce airborne dust
- Dust extraction and ventilation
- Respiratory protection
- Employee training
- Exposure monitoring
- Housekeeping procedures
- The health consequences of silica exposure
These weren’t simply general statements advising fabricators to be careful.
They addressed specific practices intended to reduce occupational exposure.
Of course, publishing safety information doesn’t automatically establish that every fabricator received it, understood it, or followed it.
That is an important distinction, particularly because the communication of warnings was reportedly disputed during the trial.
Nevertheless, the existence of the documentation is relevant when evaluating the manufacturer’s efforts to communicate known hazards.
Caesarstone’s Fabricator Certification and Inspection Program
There is another aspect of Caesarstone’s operations that deserves attention.
The company had a fabricator certification program.
In a 2020 interview published by Business of Home, a Caesarstone representative confirmed that certification included an on-site inspection and a review of fabrication best practices.
This suggests that Caesarstone wasn’t simply distributing slabs without establishing expectations for the companies fabricating its products.
It had a process intended to evaluate fabricators before certification.
That is significant.
However, I haven’t been able to establish whether the particular fabrication shop involved in this lawsuit was Caesarstone-certified, whether it underwent an inspection, or what conditions existed during any such inspection.
Those facts would be important in evaluating the circumstances of this case.
Still, the broader question remains.
How far does a manufacturer’s responsibility extend after it establishes fabrication standards, provides safety guidance, and creates a certification process?
A manufacturer can establish requirements.
It can inspect a facility before certification.
It can provide training materials, technical documentation, and warnings.
It can communicate the hazards associated with its products.
But what happens six months after an inspection? Or a year later?
What happens when equipment isn’t maintained, employees change, production increases, or established procedures are no longer followed?
Was Caesarstone supposed to have an employee standing beside every saw, every day, ensuring that proper safety procedures were being followed?
Obviously, that isn’t practical.
An inspection establishes conditions at a particular point in time. It doesn’t guarantee that those conditions will continue indefinitely.
Maintaining a safe workplace is an ongoing responsibility.
And the employer is the party with direct control over that workplace.
Where Does Manufacturer Responsibility End and Employer Responsibility Begin?
Manufacturers certainly have responsibilities.
They must understand the hazards associated with their products, communicate those hazards appropriately, and consider whether their products can be used safely under reasonably foreseeable conditions.
I also recognize an important aspect of this particular verdict.
The jury’s findings reportedly went beyond whether Caesarstone provided adequate warnings. They included a finding that the product’s design contributed substantially to the worker’s injury.
That distinction cannot be ignored.
A product can potentially be considered defectively designed even when warnings and safety instructions exist. Whether workplace precautions were adequate is not necessarily the only legal question.
But that doesn’t eliminate the responsibility of the employer.
The fabrication shop controls the equipment used to process the material.
It controls ventilation, dust suppression, housekeeping, employee training, maintenance, and the daily enforcement of safety procedures.
Those decisions directly influence the conditions workers experience throughout their employment.
So I return to the question that troubles me.
How does nearly 70% of the responsibility fall on the manufacturer while 30% falls on the employer responsible for the worker’s daily environment?
I wasn’t on the jury, and I haven’t reviewed the complete trial record.
The jury heard evidence, testimony, and legal arguments that aren’t necessarily reflected in a brief industry news report. There may be information that would influence my opinion.
Nevertheless, based on my experience observing fabrication operations, I have serious reservations about that allocation.
Does the Ability to Pay Influence the Assignment of Responsibility?
There is another uncomfortable question.
When a lawsuit involves a substantial award and defendants with very different financial resources, can the ability to pay influence how responsibility is perceived or assigned?
I don’t know whether that happened in this case, and I’m not suggesting that I know what motivated the jurors.
But I believe it’s a legitimate question to consider.
Large manufacturers are obvious defendants in product liability litigation. They have recognizable brands, substantial resources, and an identifiable position in the supply chain.
An independently operated fabrication shop may have far fewer resources.
That financial difference, however, should not determine the relative responsibility of either party.
Accountability should follow responsibility, not simply the ability to pay.
That principle should apply whether we’re discussing engineered quartz, natural stone, machinery, chemicals, or any other product used in an industrial workplace.
Fabrication Safety Cannot Be Reduced to a Manufacturer’s Warning Label
One of my concerns about cases like this is that the discussion can become focused almost entirely on the product itself.
The product matters. Its composition, hazards, design, and available alternatives deserve examination.
But so does the environment in which it is processed.
A safety manual sitting in an office doesn’t protect a worker.
Neither does a certification document hanging on a wall.
Protection comes from the equipment, procedures, training, monitoring, and enforcement that are actually in place while the work is being performed.
And those protections must be maintained consistently.
An employer cannot treat workplace safety as something that is addressed during an inspection and forgotten afterward.
It must be part of the operation every day.
At the same time, manufacturers cannot assume that issuing instructions automatically satisfies every responsibility associated with a hazardous product.
Both parties have obligations.
The question is how those obligations should be weighed when something goes terribly wrong.
Preventing the Next Case of Silicosis
I have no commercial interest in defending Caesarstone or engineered quartz.
In fact, I would welcome a broader shift toward materials with lower fabrication hazards and stronger environmental credentials.
But disliking a product doesn’t mean I should ignore what I believe is an imbalance in the assignment of responsibility.
Silicosis is preventable when hazardous exposures are effectively controlled. Achieving that requires more than one party doing its job.
Manufacturers must provide accurate product information and address risks associated with their products.
Fabrication employers must provide and maintain safe working conditions.
Regulators must establish and enforce meaningful workplace protections.
And the industry must be willing to confront unsafe practices wherever they occur.
The worker in this case deserves compassion and justice.
But the next generation of fabrication workers deserves something equally important: workplaces where safety procedures are followed every day, not just during inspections.
If we want to prevent the next case of silicosis, we need to examine what actually happens inside fabrication shops, not just how responsibility is divided afterward in a courtroom.
That’s where prevention happens.
Sources and Further Reading
Stone Update — Manufacturer Found Mainly Liable in Silicosis Case
https://stoneupdate.com/manufacturer-found-mainly-liable-in-silicosis-case/
Business of Home — In the Wake of Silicosis Report, Caesarstone Announces Educational Initiative
https://businessofhome.com/articles/in-the-wake-of-silicosis-report-caesarstone-announces-educational-initiative
Caesarstone — Safety Data Sheet, January 2020
https://mos.caesarstoneus.com/media/1359/caesarstone-sds-english-jan-2020-web.pdf
This article represents the author’s opinion based on more than 35 years of experience in the natural stone industry and the publicly reported information concerning the verdict. It is not a legal analysis of the complete trial record.
The World of Stone | Los Angeles
More than 35 years in the natural stone industry.