OWEN, Justice,
delivered the opinion of the Court,
in which PHILLIPS, Chief Justice, ENOCH, SPECTOR, BAKER, ABBOTT and HANKINSON, Justices, joined.
In this original proceeding, we are called upon to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by grouping for trial the premises liability claims of twenty-two workers or their family members against five defendants for deaths or injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos. Because the record is silent with regard to many factors that would inform our decision on the commonality or conversely the dissimilarity of these claims, the relators have not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
I
The underlying suit was brought by numerous plaintiffs who were represented by the same counsel, and at one time, this single suit encompassed the claims of 459 workers or their families, each of whom sued one or more of sixty-nine defendants. All claims are against premise owners or occupiers for the injuries or deaths of workers allegedly exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing materials at industrial sites. The workers were employed by various independent con[609]*609tractors and were sent onto these sites. ■ Settlements and summary judgments reduced the number of claims remaining for trial to those of 111 workers or their families against one or more of five defendants. Those \de-fendánts are Ethyl Corporation, USX Corporation, Todd Shipyards, Texas City Refining, Inc., and-Associated Metals, doing business as Tex-Tin. _ Each plaintiff has also asserted claims for the same injuries or deaths in separate suits against manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. All asbestos products suits in Harris County have been assigned to a special asbestos docket, but at the time this ease was submitted for argument, the premises cases had net been included in that docket.
In an attempt to pare down the diverse premises liability claims at issue in this proceeding to manageable numbers of plaintiff! for trial, the trial court directed the parties to attempt to agree on the first groupirg. When no agreement was reached, the ccurt selected twenty-five claims with one predcmi-nant factor in common — the separate actions against products manufacturers had been resolved. The defendants objected to trying these twenty-five claims together, contending that each should be tried separately. The defendants filed written objections and motions, which the trial court denied The number of claims ultimately set for trial was reduced to twenty-two when counsel for the plaintiffs determined that three of the corresponding but separate products ¿ability actions had not been resolved.
The twenty-two workers whose claims or derivative claims were chosen for trial were allegedly exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products at varying times from 1941 to 1981. The lengths of exposure ranged from just over one year to more than thirty-eight years. None of the workers had been on the premises of all five defendants. Of the twenty-two workers, eleven had been on the premises of only one defendant, six worked at the premises of two defendants, four worked at the premises of three defendants, and one worked at the premises of four defendants. All of the workers had also been exposed to asbestos at one or more of forty-one sites other than those of the defendants.
The nature of the injuries allegedly suffered by these workers differ in severity, ranging from thickening of the pleural lining, to asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Seven of the workers were deceased at the time these claims were set for trial.
Four of the five defendants sought writ of mandamus from the court of appeals, which denied any relief in an unpublished per cu-riam opinion. These defendants now seek mandamus relief from this Court. We granted leave to file in this case and in In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 975 S,W.2d 601 (Tex.1998), which we also decide today.
II
The mass tort litigation that has proliferated over the last two decades has caused departures from traditional ways in which cases have been filed, discovery has proceeded, and trials have been set. As already noted, the ease before us is a single suit in which a large number of plaintiffs have asserted separate claims against one or more of five defendants. Technically speaking, this mandamus proceeding does not concern consolidation, because all plaintiffs and all defendants were already parties to the same suit when certain of the claims were selected for a separate trial. The record indicates that counsel for the plaintiffs did not contend that all 111 claims should be tried at once. Rather, plaintiffs’ counsel as well as the trial court contemplated that the separate claims would be aggregated into groups for trial purposes.
Consolidation is governed by Rule 174(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Tex.R. Civ. P. 174(a).
Subpart (b) of the same rule governs separate trials:
[610]*610(b) Separate Trials. The court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues.
Tex.R. Civ. P. 174(b).
In their briefing in this Court, the defendants at times refer to “consolidation,” and at other times refer to the trial court’s failure to order “separate trials.” The plaintiffs refer only to the “consolidation” of their claims and rely on Rule 174(a) as authority for the trial court’s action rather than on Rule 174(b). The record in the trial court reflects that defendants made it abundantly clear that they objected to a single trial of twenty-wvo claims. Regardless of whether the issue is denominated one of consolidation, separate trials, or severance, the merits of the controversy were fully presented to and ruled upon by the trial court when it repeatedly denied the defendants’ objections to “consolidation” and motions for “separate trials.” The question squarely before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting these twenty-two claims for a single trial.
Ill
Before the dawn of mass torts, this Court considered the extent of a trial court’s discretion under Rule 174(b) to decline to order separate trials. In Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44, 291 S.W.2d 677 (1956), we held that although the word “may” in Rule 174(b) indicates that the trial court has discretion, that discretion is not unlimited. Id. at 683. A trial court “is required to exercise a sound and legal discretion within limits created by the circumstances of the particular case.” Id. We observed that the express purpose of Rule 174(b) was to further convenience, to avoid prejudice, and to promote the ends of justice. Id, The trial court has no discretion to deny separate trials when an injustice will result:
When all of the facts and circumstances of the ease unquestionably require a separate trial to prevent manifest injustice, and there is no fact or circumstance supporting or tending to support a contrary conclu-sic ii, and the legal rights of the parties will not be prejudiced thereby, there is no rtom for the exercise of discretion. The i-? ie then is peremptory in operation and imposes upon the court a duty to order a semratc trial.
IS Menij > onsiderations under Rule 174(b) aru shared under Rule 174(a), and the paramount objective of preventing injustice obtains whether the question is one of separate trials or of consolidation.
The principles we espoused in Womack remain sound, but over the last twenty years, our legal system has been faced with new challenges. The advent of mass torts necessitates that our courts devise a systematic means of resolving large numbers of cases that have issues in common. We must re-r.i.o „ueh claims in a timely manner while ensuring that justice is dispensed to each individual plaintiff and defendant in the process. The rights of the parties to a fair trial o' mot be compromised in the name of judi-éis-economy.
Stholars and courts have recognized that a mass tort h v a life cycle. See, e.g., McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges 13 Tex. L.Rev. 1821, 1841-45 (1995). Profesfor McGovern opines that a mass tort rea lies maturity when
"the“.3 bs„ been full and complete discovery, .nuI' - jury verdicts, and a persis-te” ' _.,y m the plaintiffs’ [contentions]. Tj-picaL;!- at the mature stage, little or no new evict-nee will be developed, significant appellate review of any novel legal issues has been colluded, and at least one full cycle of trial strategies has been exhausted.”
Id. at 1843 (quoting McGovern, Resolving Mature Mass Tort Litigation, 69 B.U. L. Rev. 659, 659 (1989)).
Asbestos litigation, particularly asbestos products cases, has achieved maturity. Our state trial courts have gained considerable experience in managing the thousands of claims asserted in asbestos litigation. By and large, our courts appear to be coordinating pretrial discovery and scheduling trials in a satisfactory manner, given the paucity of appeals challenging trial settings of multiple [611]*611claims. We have found only one reported decision of a Texas court in which the propriety of a consolidation of claims was raised. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Martin, 942 S.W.2d 712, 715-20 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1997, no writ) (holding that consolidation of the claims and derivative claims of twelve workers t gainst a single manufacturer of asbestos products was not error). Because of the experience our trial courts have gained over time in isbestos litigation, they now have a track record on which to base decisions about consolidation and separate trials. We can glean from the experiences of our Texas courts and those reported by federal courts that it is possible to try more than one asbestos-related (laim in a single trial. The question in each proposed consolidation is how many more.
The court of appeal? in Martin identified several factors that it ¿nd other courts have found useful. These are known as the Maryland factors. They were first articulated in an unreported federal distinct court decision, In re All Asbestos Cases Pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, slip op. at 3 (D.Md. Dec. 16, 1983) (en banc). The fiaryland factors are “(1) common worksite; (2) similar occupation; (3) similar time of exposure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were living or deceased; (6) status /of discovery in each case; (7) whether all/plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged.” Martin, 942 S.W.2d at 717 (referring to the Maryland factors as the Malcolm factors); see also Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350-51 (2d Cir.1993). As the number of Maryland factors that diferent cases have in common increases, tie number of those claims that can be triid together may increase. But there is no mathematical formula, and some of the Maryland factors should be given more weight than others. The maximum number of claims that can be aggregated is not an absolute, and the particular circumstances determine the outer limits beyond which trial courts cannot go.
The experiences of the federal courts in reviewing consolidations in asbestos litigation are enlightening. The federal rules governing consolidation and separate trials are similar to our rules of procedure. Our Rule 174 was modeled after federal Rule 42.1 The federal courts have recognized, as have our courts, that the discretion to consolidate is not unfettered. See, e.g., Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920, 111 S.Ct. 297, 112 L.Ed.2d 250 (1990). A court contemplating or reviewing consolidation must weigh the risk of prejudice or confusion against economy of scale:
[T]he court must determine! 1 “[w]hether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.”
Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11 th Cir.1985) (second alteration in original) (quoting Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4 th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1102, 103 S.Ct. 1801, 76 L.Ed.2d 366 (1983)), quoted in Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285. While considerations of judicial economy are a factor, “[cjonsiderations of convenience and economy must yield to a paramount concern for a fair [612]*612and impartial trial.” Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1285.
Generally speaking, it seems that the federal courts have met with success in trying five or fewer claims at a time, but that larger numbers of claims in a single trial have presented problems, with some notable exceptions. In the Brooklyn Navy Yard asbestos litigation, Judge Weinstein consolidated sixty-four eases for trial. In re E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 772 F.Supp. 1380 (E. & S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd in part & rev’d in part sub nom. In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig., 971 F.2d 831 (2d Cir.1992). The consolidation issue was not appealed, but the Second Circuit later indicated in Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 353 (2d Cir.1993) that it approved of the consolidation. See also Consorti v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 72 F.3d 1003, 1006 (2d Cir.1995) (observing that the consolidation in the Brooklyn Navy Yard litigation “would have passed muster”), vacated on other grounds, 518 U.S. 1031, 116 S.Ct. 2576, 135 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1996). The Second Circuit pointed out, however, that over ninety percent of the asbestos exposure in the Brooklyn Navy Yard case had occurred at a single worksite that was “subject to the uniformity in procurement and practice typical of the Navy.” Malcolm, 995 F.2d at 353. The court also emphasized that “[bjecause uniformity is a way of life with the military, the commonality of the 64 Phase I cases cannot be overstated.” Id. The same manufacturers and distributors were involved, and workers who performed similar occupations during similar time frames were likely to have experienced exposure in the same way. See id.
The court in Malcolm, however, readily distinguished the Brooklyn Navy Yard litigation from the facts presented in the appeal that was then before it and held that the trial court had consolidated too many disparate claims for trial. See id at 354. In Malcolm, the district court tried the claims of forty-eight asbestos plaintiffs against twenty-five defendants who owned or operated “40-odd” power plants, together with those defendants’ claims for contribution or indemnity against more than 200 third-party defendants. The plaintiffs, collectively, had been exposed at over 250 sites. The plaintiffs’ occupations varied, as did their diseases, and there were wide-ranging degrees and times of exposure. The Second Circuit applied the Maryland factors and concluded that the “sheer breadth of the evidence made [the precautions taken by the trial court] feckless in preventing jury confusion.” Id. at 352.
The Second Circuit had previously approved the consolidated trialthe claims of two asbestos plaintiffs ag ns three r’efen-dants. See Johnson, 89 at 1235. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the consolidation of the claims oí four workers whose claims were very similar- See Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495-96. Each of the workers in Hendrix had asbestosis, har' been insulators, were exposed within the ¡hme time fraihes, and two of the workers vvere brothers who worked at many of +h same sites. See id.
More recently, the Second Circuit found no abuse of discretion in a consolidated trial of somewhat mo e ch/erse claims. See Consorti, 72 F.3d at 1008 Although the injuries to or the deaths of tnly four workers were at issue and all of them suffered from mesothe-lioma, the suit was against numerous manufacturers of asbesto \;.c ducts. See id. at 1005. There w.-ve dissimilarities in work-sites, occupations, and times of exposure, and two of the four workers bad died. See In re New York Asbestos Litig. 149 F.R.D. 490, 496-98 (S.D.N.Y.1933) V^ccisshig the Maryland factors), aff'd sub nom Consorti, 72 F.3d 1003. Even though some of the Maryland factors weighed against consolidation, the Second Circuit emphasized ffiat use of those factors was a tool, n.h í substitute, for addressing the ultimate que&ion regarding consolidation. That question vas “whether the consolidation caused such confusion or prejudice as to render the jury incapable of finding the facts on the basis of the evidence.” Id. at 1008. The court discerned no jury confusion in the trial of these four claims. See id.
That was not the case in Cain v. Armstrong World Industries, 785 F.Supp. 1448 (S.D.Ala.1992), another asbestos suit. The personal injury and wrongful death claims of thirteen workers or their families were consolidated for trial. Although in the majority [613]*613of the consolidated claims, exposures allegedly occurred at the same site, substantially the same defendants were named in each ease, and the defenses and state-of-the-art evidence were the same, the district court com eluded after trial that “the consolidation of such a large number of actions involving both personal injury and wrongful death resulted in prejudicial error.” Id. at 1451. One indication of prejudice was the size of the damage awards, which the court found excessive and unsupported by the evidence in many instances. The utilization of jury aids had not alleviated the confusion:
It is evident (unfortunately, in hindsight) that despite all the precautionary measures taken by the Court (e.g., juror notebooks, cautionary instructions before, during and after the presentation of evidence, special interrogatory forms) the joint trial of such a large number of differing cases both confused and prejudiced the jury. This confusion and prejudice is manifest in the identical damages awarded in the non-cancer personal injury cases and in the cancer personal injury cases, the relatively short deliberation time as well as in the inflated amounts of many of the damage awards and the lack of evidence supporting some of the damages in several cases.
Id. at 1455.
The district court recounted that prior to this trial, five trials of consolidated asbestos cases had occurred in that district. In one, nine actions were consolidated, and in the others, no more than four actions had been consolidated. The Cain court observed that there was a strong indication that the jury in those cases had considered each individual claim on its merits. See id. at 1455-56. The district court also noted the Johnson and Hendrix decisions, in which two and four claims, respectively, had been consolidated successfully. Id. at 1455. The Cain court summarized its experience by saying that the consolidated trial of claims of thirteen workers allowed the plaintiffs to overwhelm the jury:
The “Try-as-many-as-you-ean-at-one-time” approach is great if they all, or most, settle; but when they don’t, and they didn’t here, thirteen shipyard workers, their wives, or executors if they have died, got a chance to do something not many other civil litigants can do — overwhelm a jury with evidence. Evidence that would not have been admissible in any single plaintiffs case had these cases been tried separately [sic]. As the evidence unfolded in this case, it became more and more obvious to this Court that a process had been unleashed that left the jury the impossible task of being able to carefully sort out and distinguish the facts and law of thirteen plaintiffs’ eases that varied greatly in so many critical aspects.
Id. at 1457. The district court concluded that when fewer cases are consolidated for trial, the jury is better able to consider the eases separately and return verdicts based on the facts of each case. See id. at 1456.
While most of the reported decisions concerning consolidation of mass tort litigation have involved asbestos, at least one federal appellate court has applied the Maryland factors to litigation involving repetitive stress injuries. See In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368, 373 (2d Cir.1993). In issuing writ of mandamus, the Second Circuit concluded that the consolidation of large numbers of disparate claims against different manufacturers was an abuse of discretion, even for discovery purposes. See id. at 373-74. The plaintiffs were engaged in many different occupations and suffered from injuries and conditions that varied widely and could have been caused by something other than the defendants’ conduct. See id. at 374. The defendants manufactured or distributed “a variety of mechanical devices with differing propensities, if any, to cause the harm alleged.” Id. at 373. Reiterating that convenience and economy must yield to a paramount concern for a fair and impartial trial, the Second Circuit admonished:
“The systemic urge to aggregate litigation must not be allowed to trump our dedication to individual justice, and we must take care that each individual plaintiff’s — -and defendant’s — cause not be lost in the shadow of a towering mass litigation.”
Id. (quoting In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig., 971 F.2d 831, 853 (2d Cir.1992)).
[614]*614When faced with very different facts, a New York state court approved the consolidation of claims by four plaintiffs against one defendant for repetitive stress injuries. See Aikman v. Atex, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 180, 637 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y.App.Div.1996). The work-sites, occupations, and times of exposure were similar, and the products at issue were a limited number of keyboards manufactured by a single defendant. Further, the trial court empaneled four separate juries for each case. Id. at 123-24.
The facts presented in this mandamus proceeding lie on a continuum somewhere between Malcolm (48 plaintiffs, 25 defendants, and over 200 third-party defendants) and Consorti (4 workers with the same disease but multiple defendants and worksites). We now turn to whether the trial court abused its discretion in grouping for trial the particular claims before us.
IV
We first recognize the practicalities involved in setting cases for trial and the difficulties encountered by trial courts. A court may join cases for a single trial with the expectation that some will settle before trial commences. The number of cases initially set might exceed the number that can be tried together without confusion or prejudice. But, by the time the trial date is reached, the number and character of claims that remain to be tried may be within the bounds of the trial court’s discretion to group them for a single trial.
Trial courts must be very cautious both in choosing the cases that are initially set and in proceeding with the actual trial to ensure that the process remains fair to all. Even when a court sets cases for trial with the expectation that some will settle, the process cannot be abused. Setting far more cases than can be tried would present a serious issue. Cf. In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7 th Cir.) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in forcing the “defendants to stake their companies on the outcome of a single jury trial, or be forced by fear of the risk of bankruptcy to settle”), cert. denied 516 U.S. 867, 116 S.Ct. 184, 133 L.Ed.2d 122 (1995); see also Friendly, Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973) (condemning “blackmail settlements”), quoted in In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d at 1298. On the other hand, trial courts must set enough cases for trial to ensure that those eases that do not settle will be reached on a timely basis. Plaintiffs in asbestos suits who do not survive their wait for a trial date will be denied justice. In recognizing this reality, we also recognize that there is some tension between the principle of law that a court has no discretion to consolidate claims for trial when that will result in an injustice, see Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44, 291 S.W.2d 677, 683 (1956), and the possibility that an abuse of discretion in joining many disparate claims may evaporate before trial if eases were to settle.
We emphasize, however, that once the trial date arrives, a trial court should reassess the claims that have been aggregated to make certain that the requisite commonality is present and that the sheer number of claims, parties, or worksites will not overwhelm or confuse the jury. The lesson learned by the court in Cain v. Armstrong World Industries bears repeating: “The ‘Try-as-many-as-you-ean-at-one-time’ approach is great if they all, or most, settle; but when they don’t, and they didn’t here, [the plaintiffs] got a chance to do something not many other civil litigants can do — overwhelm a jury with evidence.” 785 F.Supp. 1448, 1457 (S.D.Ala.1992).
The Maryland factors are designed to assist courts in determining if the consolidation of claims is likely to prejudice or confuse the jury. In some cases, the probability that prejudice or confusion will result may be apparent when only one factor is examined. It may be that the number or diversity of worksites, for example, would create such confusion that it would be an abuse of discretion to consolidate. In other eases, no single factor may clearly indicate that prejudice or confusion is probable, but when the evidence that will be presented is considered in the aggregate, the cumulative effect would result in an unacceptably high risk of prejudice or juror confusion. In the final analysis, the [615]*615dominant consideration in every ease is whether the trial will be fair and impartial to all parties.
This case presents a close call. On balance, however, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion because the record is silent with regard to many aspects of the Maryland factors. In utilizing the Maryland factors, we caution that they are not exclusive and may not be the best indieia in other types of mass tort litigation. For example, see In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 975 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.1998), which we also decide today. They are, however, appropriate in this ease:
1)Worksites
As already noted, there is not a single worksite at issue, and the worksites are not of the same type. Of the twenty-two workers, eleven had been on the premises of only one defendant, six worked at the premises of two defendants, four worked at the premises of three defendants, and one worked at the premises of four defendants. It would be difficult for a jury to keep track of where and when each of the twenty-two plaintiffs were allegedly exposed to asbestos even if the sites of exposure were limited to those of the five defendants. But the matter is further complicated by the fact that there are at least forty-one other sites at which one or more of the workers allegedly was exposed to materials that contained asbestos. It is questionable whether, in determining causation and liability, jurors could reach reasoned decisions regarding the extent to which each worker was exposed to asbestos fibers at each site.
A risk of juror confusion is present in this ease even if the trial court were to utilize techniques that have seemed to lessen confusion in other asbestos eases, such as providing notebooks with charts and undisputed facts categorized for each worker, allowing jurors to take notes, and submitting jury issues and instructions tailored to each plaintiff. See, e.g., Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 352 (2d Cir.1993) (holding “that the sheer breadth of the evidence made [such] precautions feckless in preventing jury confusion”); see also Cain, 785 F.Supp. at 1455.
The fact that these are premises cases in which the workers were employed by independent contractors could further complicate the factual inquiries. The responsibility for conducting a task in a safe manner rests with the independent contractor and not the premises owner or occupier “ “where the activity is conducted by, and is under the control of an independent contractor, and where the danger arises’ out of the employees’ performance of the task.” Exxon Corp. v. Quinn, 726 S.W.2d 17, 19-20 (Tex. 1987) (quoting Abalos v. Oil Dev. Co., 544 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.1976)). While premises cases such as these hold the potential for juror confusion because of the fact issues that may arise with regard to each individual worker and his employer, the record is devoid of any evidence whether disputed fact issues exist regarding the right of control by an owner or occupier of the premises or whether the injured party or his employer created the alleged premise defect. Nevertheless, on balance, the diversity and sheer number of worksites weigh against consolidation.
2) Similar Occupations
The twenty-two individuals allegedly exposed to materials that contained asbestos were engaged in a wide variety of occupations, and therefore, some may have had more intensive exposure to asbestos than others. Decisions that have applied the Maryland factors indicate that a disparity in occupations weighs against consolidation. See, e.g., Malcolm, 995 F.2d at 351-52. We agree that if the nature or extent of exposure qualitatively varied among the different occupations, this would be significant. However, the record is silent as to whether these various occupations resulted in differing exposure levels, and we cannot simply presume that material differences exist.
3) Time of Exposure
This factor has two aspects, the dates on which exposure occurred and the length of exposure. The dates on which each worker came into contact with materials that con[616]*616tained asbestos and the length of that contact varies substantially from worker to worker and from worksite to worksite, including worksites owned or occupied by more than forty entities that are not parties to this suit. The earliest date of exposure alleged regarding any of the five defendants is 1946, and the latest is 1979. Moreover, at least one worker was exposed as early as 1941 at a site that was not owned or occupied by any defendant in this case, and another worker was exposed as late as 1981 at a site other than those owned by the five defendants. As already noted, the lengths of contact with asbestos-containing materials range from thirty-eight years to less than two years.
Although logically one would suspect that the state of a given defendant’s knowledge about asbestos-containing products would be different at different points in time and that the evidence regarding causation would vary depending on the length of exposure and the dates of exposure, the record is silent on these matters. Defendants argue that the varying dates and degrees of exposure are significant, but the record provides no evidence of how or why. We cannot say, based on this record, that evidence admissible and probative against some defendants would be inadmissible and unduly prejudicial as to others or that the jury would be confused by the fact that different workers were exposed at different points in time and for different lengths of time.
4) Disease types and types of cancer
The courts that have considered the question of consolidation or separate trials in asbestos litigation have focused on whether the diseases alleged have the same or similar etiologies. The diseases allegedly suffered by the twenty-two workers in this case run the gamut from mesothelioma at one end of the spectrum to pleural thickening at the other and include asbestosis and lung cancer. Again, one might surmise that there are indeed differences in the etiologies of these conditions, but we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion on the basis of surmise. The record in this case contains no stipulation, expert testimony, or affidavits stating that the evidence regarding these various diseases will vary significantly.
5) The living and the deceased
Some courts have expressed concern that permitting the consolidation of claims by living workers with claims of the families of deceased workers would unduly prejudice the trial because there is a danger that the claims regarding deceased workers or those who have life-ending diseases will boot-strap the claims of workers who do not have fatal conditions:
“[T]he presence of wrongful death claims and personal injury actions in a consolidated trial is somewhat troublesome.... [T]he dead plaintiffs may present the jury with a powerful demonstration of the fate that awaits those claimants who are still living.”
Malcolm, 995 F.2d at 351-52 (alterations in original) (quoting In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 125 F.R.D. 60, 65-66 (E. & S.D.N.Y.1989)).
This concern has considerable force when the types of diseases suffered by the workers vary and it is disputed whether these diseases are likely to result in death. However, when all of the claimants suffer from an inevitably fatal disease, the prejudice from consolidating the cases of living claimants with those of decedents generally diminishes. The record does not inform us whether the prognoses for pleural thickening, asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer differ among the twenty-two surviving workers or whether there is a substantial dispute about the prognoses of those who suffer from any of these diseases.
The remaining Maryland factors, which are the status of discovery and whether the workers or their families are represented by the same counsel, are not at issue and favor a single trial. However, we agree with the Second Circuit that these factors are far less important than the other considerations identified by the Maryland criteria. See In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368, 374 (2d Cir.1993).
At least one other consideration should be added to the Maryland factors in [617]*617asbestos litigation and that is the type of asbestos-containing product to which the worker was exposed. In some products, the asbestos is embedded and fibers are not likely to become loose or airborne. In other products, the asbestos is friable. This, of course, bears on the extent and intensity of exposure to asbestos and could be considered a subset of the worksite or occupation factors. There is no evidence in this record regarding the types of asbestos products that the workers encountered.
The defendants contend that whether there is evidence that is admissible against one defendant would be inadmissible against others should be given overriding weight. They cite Lone Star Ford, Inc. v. McCormick, 838 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied), in which the court of appeals observed that consolidation is proper only if the claims are “so related that evidence presented will be material, relevant, and admissible in each case.” Id. at 737. We agree that this is an important consideration in determining if consolidation or separate trials are in order. Use of the Maryland factors assists in identifying evidence that would be inadmissible against a particular defendant but that could come into evidence against another defendant. The prejudicial effect of such evidence should be weighed very carefully, but the fact that some evidence may be inadmissible against some defendants is not necessarily outcome-determinative on the issue of separate trials or consolidation. The degree of prejudice and the potential that the jury would not be able to keep track of what evidence applies to which defendant must be considered.
The ultimate question under our rules of procedure and decisions interpreting them is whether the undisputed facts and circumstances of this case require a separate trial of fewer than the twenty-two claims at issue to prevent prejudice and manifest injustice. See Womack, 291 S.W.2d at 683. In this mandamus proceeding, we cannot say, based on this record, that a party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense will be vitiated or severely compromised. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex.1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
HECHT, Justice,filed a dissenting opinion, in which GONZALEZ, Justice, joined.