Proving Causation in Maritime Asbestos Cases

Proving Causation in Maritime Asbestos Cases

By: Forrest Guedry

To succeed in a maritime products liability suit, the plaintiff must show that: (1) The plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s defective product, (2) The defendant’s product was a substantial factor that caused the plaintiff’sinjury, and (3) The defendant manufactured or distributed the defective product.In Crews v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., U.S. District Court, N.D. New York – February 18, 2014, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any disputable facts as to the first and third causation requirements.Dwight Crews, plaintiff, brought claims against defendant, Crane, as the manufacturer of certain products that allegedly contained asbestos. As a machinist for the U.S. Navy from 1965-1971, Crews was responsible for maintaining valves and pumps onboard the USS Wright and USS Bainbridge. Crews alleged that the gaskets and packing material found within these valves were infused with asbestos that he inhaled regularly.Importantly, the products at issue fell into two distinct categories: a.) valves that contained asbestos infused gaskets and packing material that had been originally supplied to these vessel at the time they were constructed, and b.) asbestos infused replacement gaskets and packing materials supplied to the vessels during the time period that plaintiff worked aboard these vessels.The court first addressed exposure regarding the defective valves. The USS Wright was built nearly 40 years prior to plaintiff working there. The USS Bainbridge was built at least five years prior to when the plaintiff worked there. This timeline was crucial to the court’s decision.Without further evidence of plaintiff’s actual exposure to those valves originally supplied to either vessel, the court found that plaintiff failed to meet the first causation requirement based solely on the fact that plaintiff had come into contact with numerous ‘valves’ while aboard either vessel. Thus, the court found no disputable fact as to whether plaintiff had been exposed to the valves containing asbestos-infused material and that had been originally supplied to the vessels at the time they were constructed.Next, the court addressed whether Crews presented sufficient evidence that the defendant actually manufactured or distributed the gaskets and packing material at issue. Crews claimed that he knew the defendant manufactured these products because the word “Crane” appeared on the materials. The court found this fact inadequate to establish anything more than mere speculation that the defendant could have supplied the Navy with theasbestos containing products.Finally, since Crews did not provide satisfactory evidence that the defendant supplied the asbestos containing products, the court also found that the defendant did not have a duty to warn plaintiff about possible asbestos exposure.