Court RulingThe Georgia Supreme Court has weighed-in on the issue of manufacturers’ liability for take-home exposure cases. In the opinion recently issued in CertainTeed Corporation v. Fletcher, the Court drew an unexpected distinction between a manufacturer’s duty to issue warnings and its responsibility to keep harmful products out of the stream of commerce. Justice Carol Hunstein, writing for the Court, concludes that while manufacturers do not generally have a duty to warn third parties of the possible hazards of asbestos dust from its products, a manufacturer does bear the burden of proving that its product, as designed, is not defective. The opinion comes as a bit of surprise, as it seems to contradict a prior opinion issued by the Court, wherein it held that an employer owes no duty to third-party, non-employees, who come into contact with its employees’ asbestos-tainted work clothing at locations away from the work place.

Plaintiff Marcelle Fletcher filed suit in Georgia after being diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. In her complaint, Fletcher alleges that years of laundering her father’s asbestos-tainted clothing caused her to come into contact with asbestos from cement water pipe manufactured by CertainTeed, which eventually caused her mesothelioma. When the trial court granted CertainTeed’s motion for summary judgment on Fletcher’s failure-to-warn and product defect claims, Fletcher appealed. The appellate court reversed and the Georgia Supreme Court thereafter granted review of CertainTeed’s appeal.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that CertainTeed, as a manufacturer, owed no duty to warn Fletcher of the possible hazards of asbestos dust from its products. In reaching its conclusion the Court cited public policy concerns that could result from an expansion of the class of individuals protected by a manufacturer’s duty to warn, stating that any such duty placed on the manufacturer would ultimately shift to the product user. Looking at the facts in the case before it, the Court determined that while “Fletcher would not have seen any warning label placed on CertainTeed’s products … a warning could have permitted her father to take steps to mitigate any danger posed by the asbestos dust on his clothing.” The Court nevertheless determined that such a conclusion would be “problematic” in that it effectively makes the product-user responsible for protecting those with whom he or she comes into contact, whether those individuals were members of the same household or members of the same community. The Court reasoned that imposing such an indefinite and imprecise duty on CertainTeed to warn all individuals in Fletcher’s position would be unreasonable, classifying the scope and mechanism of such warnings as “endless.”

Regarding Fletcher’s design defect claim, however, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s reversal of summary judgment, finding that CertainTeed had failed to prove that its product was not defectively designed. The Court’s holding seems, at first, to contradict its 2005 decision in CSK Trans. v. Williams, 278 Ga. 888, 608 SE 2d 208 (2005), wherein the Court barred take-home exposure claims against employers, holding that employers did not owe a
Continue Reading Manufacturers Benefit from Georgia Supreme Court Ruling on Take-Home Exposure

louisiana-890549_960_720Causation opinions from plaintiff’s experts in asbestos exposure cases have undergone a puzzling evolution as they continue to face successful challenges. From “every exposure” to “every exposure above background” and “every significant exposure,” each iteration has attempted to make the same end run around the plaintiff’s burden of proof by stating that all exposures in a lifetime work together to cause disease. A recent federal decision, however, struck another blow to the “every exposure” theory, adding to the growing case law debunking it as nothing more than junk science.

Under the “every exposure” theory advanced by plaintiff’s attorneys in asbestos litigation, each defendant whose product plaintiff may have worked with or around, no matter how infrequently, is equally liable. The theory claims that each exposure contributes to the development of disease, without making any attempt to quantify the specific exposures from various products. This is particularly problematic when you consider that exposures to asbestos from certain products may be so low that, taken individually, may not have resulted in disease. The “every exposure” theory glosses over these de minimis exposures with the opinion “each and every exposure” to asbestos contributes to the causation of disease.

Recently, federal courts have begun to critically analyze this “every exposure” theory, and to demand a more stringent causation analysis. In Smith v. Ford Motor Co, a Utah federal court found held that the “each and every exposure theory is based on a lack of facts and data.” Smith involved a plaintiff’s expert who opined that the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was caused by his total and cumulative exposure, with all exposures playing a contributory role. The court excluded that testimony, finding that the “every exposure” theory “asks too much from too little evidence as far as the law is concerned. It seeks to avoid not only the rules of evidence but more importantly the burden of proof.” Likewise, in Yates v. Ford Motor Co., a case out of the Eastern District of North Carolina, the court excluded testimony of another well-known plaintiff’s expert, finding that his adherence to the “each and every exposure” theory lacked a basis in supporting facts or data.

And most recently, in Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., the Eastern District of Louisiana referenced the growing line of exclusionary opinions and stated that the “deficiencies of the “each and every exposure” theory of causation in asbestos exposure cases have been extensively discussed.” The court held that the theory is not an acceptable theory of causation because it amounts to “nothing more than the ipse dixit of the expert.” Though some state and federal courts continue to permit the “every exposure” theory, cases like Smith, Yates, and Bell add to the growing number of jurisdictions requiring plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof.
Continue Reading Another Blow to “Every Exposure” in Asbestos Litigation

california-160550_960_720Last month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on two coordinated “take-home” asbestos exposure cases, in which it held that employers using asbestos in the workplace have a duty of care to protect an employees’ household members from exposure to asbestos through off-site contact with employees who carry asbestos fibers on their work clothing and/or persons, also referred to as “take-home” exposure plaintiffs.  The Court noted that the duty of care existed regardless of whether the plaintiff states a claim for general negligence or premises liability.  This ruling helps clarify the law in California on the duty of care owed to “take-home” exposure plaintiffs, and in doing so further establishes California as a plaintiff-friendly state in asbestos litigation.

The Court’s opinion was premised on two “take-home” asbestos cases.  In one matter, the plaintiff filed suit against various defendants alleging that they exposed him to asbestos and caused his peritoneal mesothelioma.  Among the defendants was Pneumo Abex, LLC.  The plaintiff alleged that his uncle worked and was exposed to asbestos in a Pneumo Abex plant, which he then took home on his clothes and person and to which the plaintiff was subsequently exposed to during the 1970s.  In the other matter, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against various defendants, alleging that their mother passed away from mesothelioma after also having been exposed to asbestos.  Among other defendants, the plaintiffs alleged that BNSF Railway Company employed and exposed the decedent’s husband to asbestos fibers, which he then brought home to the household he shared with the decedent, thereby exposing her to asbestos as well.

The Supreme Court set out to determine whether an employer or premises owner using asbestos has a duty to protect individuals secondarily exposed to asbestos through the clothing and persons of individuals either employed by the defendant or on the defendant’s premises.  After evaluating the facts and law, the Court held that “[w]here it is reasonably foreseeable that workers, their clothing, or personal effects will act as vectors carrying asbestos from the premises to household members, employers have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent this means of transmission,” and that the duty applies to employers and “also applies to premises owners who use asbestos on their property, subject to any exceptions and affirmative defenses generally applicable to premises owners.”  However, the Court noted that this duty  extends only to members of a worker’s household, regardless of whether they are a relative.

In reaching this holding, the California Supreme Court first noted that California Civil Code section 1714 “establishes a general duty to exercise ordinary care in one’s activities,” thereby meaning that the issue is not whether a new duty should be established, but rather whether the Court should create an exception such that employers and premises owners would not owe a duty of reasonable care towards a workers’ household members secondarily exposed to asbestos.  California law requires that courts consider the factors outlined in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968)
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Recognizes a Duty of Care to “Take-Home” Plaintiffs

camelsFive plaintiffs in a smoking lung cancer case in a Baltimore City, Maryland case captioned James Harrell, et al v. ACandS, INC., et al, Consol. Case No. 24X16000053 saw their claims go up in smoke on November 15, 2016 when the Court granted certain Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Assumption of Risk and Contributory Negligence. With Judge Althea M. Handy presiding, the Court addressed whether the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of developing lung cancer by knowing of the addictiveness of cigarettes and their ability to cause lung cancer, but nevertheless proceeding to smoke cigarettes numbering in the thousands.

In Maryland, assumption of the risk is a defense that serves as a complete bar to plaintiff’s recovery of damages under both negligence and strict liability for failure to warn causes of action.[1] To prevail on the defense of assumption of the risk, the defendant must show that the plaintiff “1) had knowledge of the risk of danger; 2) appreciated that risk; and 3) voluntarily confronted the risk of danger.”[2] Under Maryland law, the first two elements are judged by an objective standard. The third element requires that the defendant establish that there was no restriction on the plaintiff’s freedom of choice either by existing circumstance or by coercion emanating from the defendant.[3]

With regard to the first element, the Court in Harrell found that the plaintiffs had knowledge and appreciated the risk that cigarettes were hazardous not by any direct evidence, but instead by relying on discussions of the hazards in the popular media, an almost guilt by association theory. For example, the Court noted that Reader’s Digest, “one of the most widely read publications in the 1920s and 1930s published articles discussing the addictiveness of cigarettes” and that a popular country artist recorded lyrics in 1947 that used phrases like “nicotine slave” and “smoke yourself to death.” The Court further relied on Maryland jurisprudence that concluded that “the ordinary consumer was aware of smoking hazards . . . since the 1950s.”[4]

With regard to the second element, the Court again relied not on any appreciation of risk specific to the plaintiffs, but on “common knowledge by the 1950s” that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer. The court cited CBS News Program airings on smoking and lung cancer, 1950s print media reporting the connection, and again referenced case law that “found that from 1947 to 1984 the dangers of smoking were obvious and generally known so as to bar the plaintiff’s claims.”[5]

Finally, with regard to the third element, the court found that because the plaintiffs smoked such a high number of cigarettes (reaching in the tens and hundreds of thousands) from the 1950s through the subsequent decades, during a time when warning labels were required on every package, they voluntarily confronted the risk of smoking.

Earlier this year in the The Estate of Willard Entwisle, et al. v. ACandS, Inc. et al., Consol. Case No. 24X15000108, a different Baltimore
Continue Reading Another Smoking Lung Cancer Asbestos Claim Gets Burned in Baltimore

Jury_Box_Purchased_8-13-14_iStock_000010826297SmallSince the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman in 2014, general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant has become a hot topic. See 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). In most jurisdictions, it is no longer sufficient for a plaintiff to establish a corporate defendant was registered to do business in the jurisdiction at issue or that the corporate defendant had sales and/or derived revenue in the jurisdiction at issue. Rather, there is a heightened inquiry and heavier burden placed on a plaintiff.

The Daimler Court held that a corporate defendant is deemed “at home” for purposes of establishing general jurisdiction over it in the forum where it is incorporated and in the forum where it maintains its principal place of business. Outside of those two circumstances, a corporate defendant will be considered at home only in exceptional cases.

One such exceptional case, as noted by the Daimler Court, can be found in the Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. case wherein a corporate defendant moved its operations to Ohio out of Japanese occupied Philippines during World War II. See 342 U.S. 437 (1952). In Perkins, the president of the corporate defendant company kept an office, maintained company files, and oversaw the company’s activities in Ohio sufficient to render the defendant essentially at home in Ohio.

Many courts have interpreted the Court’s opinion in Daimler to place a heavy burden on plaintiffs to present such an exceptional case. With such a heavy burden placed on plaintiffs, the question many defendants are asking is: what amount of discovery are plaintiffs entitled to take in order to establish general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant?

The Delaware Superior Court recently faced this very question. In April 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a decision in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec limiting the circumstances in which a defendant is deemed to be subject to general jurisdiction in the State of Delaware pursuant to Daimler. 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016). Shortly thereafter, Defendant Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Daimler and Cepec in 211 cases pending in New Castle County, Delaware. The plaintiff in one of those cases – Charles Kimble – responded by serving written discovery requests and seeking the deposition of UCC’s corporate representative. In addition, plaintiffs in six additional cases[1] (out of the 211 with pending motions to dismiss) sought the deposition of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) alleging Dow, as a Delaware corporation and parent to UCC, held some information relevant to whether the Delaware Superior Court could exercise general jurisdiction over UCC.

UCC responded to written interrogatories and document requests providing its basic corporate information and publicly available documents detailing its limited contacts with Delaware and its relationship with Dow. However, UCC and Dow both filed separate motions to quash the depositions of their corporate representatives (“Motions”). In their Motions, UCC and Dow argued Plaintiffs failed to provide “some indication” of a plausible basis for their
Continue Reading Daimler Ruling’s Crucial Role in Recent Delaware Court Decision