Proving Causation and Jurisdiction in Maritime Asbestos Case
Proving Causation and Jurisdiction in Maritime Asbestos Case
By: Forrest Guedry
Yates v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., No. 5:12-cv-752-FL (E.D. North Carolina Jan. 30, 2014), addressed causation and jurisdiction in the maritime asbestos context. Graham Yates, plaintiff, worked as a seamen, laborer, service station attendant, and automotive parts handler during the course of his career. Plaintiff claimed that he contracted mesothelioma throughout his working career due to his exposure to certain products manufactured, supplied, and distributed by the defendants.Plaintiff alleged personal injury and loss of consortium following his diagnosis of mesothelioma in August 2012. Plaintiff argued that his exposure to the products manufactured by the twenty-nine named defendants resulted in his mesothelioma diagnosis. Plaintiff specifically alleged that defendants have: (1) acted negligently in putting asbestos-containing products into interstate commerce without providing warning or protection; (2) breached the implied warranties that asbestos materials were of good and merchantable quality and fit for their intended use; (3) acted willfully and wantonly in exposing Plaintiff to asbestos; (4) committed false representation and fraud concerning the dangers of asbestos exposure to Plaintiff; and (5) failed to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure.Eight defendants filed motions for summary judgment.Causation in Asbestos Cases The court cited Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Nos 94-1861, 94-1862 (4th Cir. 1995), a Fourth Circuit case that applied North Carolina law. In Jones, the court held that a “plaintiff in a personal injury asbestos case must prove more than a casual minimum contact with the product containing asbestos in order to hold the manufacturer of that product liable. Instead, the plaintiff must present evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.” Jurisdiction in Asbestos CasesIn this case, the court had to make a determination as to whether federal maritime law or North Carolina state law should apply. The court noted that theSupreme Court had established maritime law to be applicable when a tortious action satisfies both the “locality test” and the “connection test.” The locality test requires the tort to occur on a navigable waterway. Further, the connection test requires 1) the incident to have a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce and that 2) the activity which caused the accident has a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Regarding asbestos exposure cases, various district courts have found the locality test satisfied if exposure occurred on a vessel in navigable water, and that such exposure threatened the safety of crewmembers so as to disrupt maritime commerce.Although there are no Fourth Circuit cases that specifically address jurisdiction in maritime asbestos cases, the court applied the Sixth Circuit case of Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust. 424 F.3r 488 (2005), In that case, the court required the “plaintiff to show ‘for each defendant, that 1) he was exposed to the defendant’s product, and 2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered.” The Lindstrom court further stated that, “[m]inimal exposure,” or “mere showing that a defendant’s product was present somewhere at plaintiff’s place of work are insufficient.”After reviewing the Fourth and Sixth Circuit opinions, the court granted six defendants’ motions for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish that he had actually been exposed to asbestos from products manufactured by any one of these defendants. Further, the plaintiff failed to prove that his alleged exposure occurred on a regular basis over an extended period of time.
