On October 29, 2013, an appellate court in California affirmed a $21 million jury verdict in favor of a mesothelioma victim and his wife against John Crane, Inc. (“JCI”), a manufacturer of products containing asbestos.
In an important ruling that may help other mesothelioma victims recover damages against asbestos companies, the appellate court rejected JCI’s argument that it should be shielded from liability due to the so-called “sophisticated user” defense. Under this defense, a manufacturer is not liable to a user of a dangerous product for failure to warn if the user knew or should have known of the risk, harm, or danger associated with the product.
Plaintiff Exposed to Asbestos While Serving in the Navy
From 1963 to 1971, William Pfeifer served in the Navy. After leaving the Navy, he worked for the United States government as a boiler technician until 1982. In the Navy, his responsibilities included removing and replacing gaskets and packing containing asbestos. The air he breathed often became dusty when he scraped away old gaskets and packing to replace them with new materials.
JCI was a key supplier of the gaskets and packing he worked with while in the Navy and as a boiler technician with the U.S. government. Mr. Pfeifer estimated that JCI supplied 75% of the gaskets he removed, 70% of the materials from which he made replacement gaskets, and 90%-95% of the packing line he removed and replaced.
An expert witness testified that JCI’s products had exposed asbestos fibers, even though they were embedded in graphite or other materials. This expert also testified that the cutting, scraping, and other operations that Mr. Pfeifer performed on the products released asbestos fibers into the air.
In 2009, Mr. Pfeifer was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma, a type of cancer usually caused by exposure to asbestos.
On June 25, 2009, Mr. Pfeifer and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium against approximately 31 suppliers of asbestos-laden products, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Prior to trial, the Pfeifers entered into settlements with several defendants. By the commencement of jury selection, JCI was the sole remaining defendant in the case.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Pfeifers on their claims for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. The jury also found that the company acted with malice, oppression, or fraud and awarded the Pfeifers $14,500,000 in punitive damages.
On February 3, 2011, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Pfeifers, awarding them economic and non-economic damages totaling over $21 million. Nineteen days later, on February 22, 2011, Mr. Pfeifer passed away.
Sophisticated User Defense Inapplicable in California If Worker Was Unaware of Dangers of Asbestos
JCI appealed the jury’s decision, contending, among other things, that the trial court improperly rejected the company’s proposed jury instructions regarding the sophisticated user defense. JCI argued that it could not be held liable for its failure to warn Mr. Pfeifer of the hazards of asbestos while he served in the Navy, because the Navy supposedly had greater knowledge of those hazards than JCI.
The appellate court noted that the Supreme Court of California recognized the sophisticated user defense in the 2008 case of Johnson v. American Standard , where a certified heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) technician suffered injuries due to his repeated exposure to a refrigerant. After one of the defendants in that case obtained summary judgment on the grounds that the HVAC technician was aware of the risks of the refrigerant, the Supreme Court of California held that the sophisticated user defense can be applied to tort cases in California.
In determining whether a court should apply the sophisticated user defense, the appellate court observed that the inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the particular risk of harm from the product giving rise to the injury.
The evidence at trial established that, by the 1960s, medical researches became aware that asbestos caused cancer. JCI, however, issued no warnings regarding its products while Mr. Pfeifer served in the Navy. In addition, Mr. Pfeifer received no training regarding the dangers of asbestos.
JCI argued that the Navy was a “sophisticated user intermediary” and it therefore had a duty to warn its workers of the dangers of asbestos.
In rejecting JCI’s arguments that the sophisticated user defense should shield the company from liability, the appellate court noted that “there must be some basis for the supplier to believe that the ultimate user knows, or should know, of the item’s hazards.” Here, there was no reasonable basis for JCI to believe that Mr. Pfeifer had any knowledge of risk of harm associated with JCI’s products.
The California appellate court acknowledged that courts in other jurisdictions are split as to whether the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the sophisticated intermediary and the plaintiff protects asbestos manufactures from liability for a failure to warn.
In holding that the lower court acted appropriately in refusing to allow the jury to consider the sophisticated user defense, the appellate court stated:
The intermediary’s sophistication is not, as a matter of law, sufficient to avert liability; there must be a sufficient reason for believing that the intermediary’s sophistication is likely to operate to protect the user, or that the user is likely to discover the hazards in some other manner. The fact that the user is an employee or servant of the sophisticated intermediary cannot plausibly be regarded as a sufficient reason, as a matter of law, to infer that the latter will protect the former.
Furthermore, the appellate court observed that, “notably absent is any evidence that JCI had reason to believe the Navy would issue warnings to Pfeifer regarding JCI’s products while he served in the Navy, or that it was then readily known and apparent to the Navy that the amounts of dust released from JCI’s products were hazardous.”
In upholding the award of punitive damages, the appellate court noted that although JCI took action to protect its own employees from asbestos, it did not warn its customers of the risks associated with the mineral. The company did not issue warnings to customers until 1983, even though it was aware that customers used their products in ways that generated substantial asbestos dust.
Author Bio : Christopher M. Placitella is an attorney and shareholder at Cohen Placitella & Roth, P.C . Mr. Placitella has established a national asbestos litigation group dedicated to effectively representing individuals who suffer from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. An experienced litigator, Mr. Placitella served as trial counsel in the largest consolidated asbestos trial in New York City history and also obtained the largest punitive damage verdict in New Jersey against an asbestos company.
Originally published on LawyerCentral by Chris Placitella on November 4, 2013 Read the original (Internet Archive).