Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. v. Cantrell (2015)

Our plain-English summary of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. v. Cantrell (Virginia Supreme Court, April 16, 2015).

Garland Cantrell worked as a boiler tender from 1987 through 2005 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2013. He sued 17 defendants who owned premises where he had worked on boilers, alleging negligence and gross negligence. He also alleged that Newport News Shipbuilding (now Huntington Ingalls) was negligent because his parents, who worked there, carried asbestos fibers home on their clothes and persons. The defendants filed demurrers, which were briefed and argued in the Norfolk circuit court, and the court took them under advisement. Before it ruled, Cantrell filed a similar suit in Newport News and moved to nonsuit the Norfolk case. The circuit court allowed the nonsuit, and twelve premises defendants and Huntington appealed. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed. Under Code § 8.01-380(A), a nonsuit is not allowed once the action has been submitted to the court for decision. A demurrer is a dispositive motion, and after briefing and argument the case was in the trial judge's hands. The case was sent back for further proceedings.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Decided: April 16, 2015
• Citation: 770 S.E.2d 499
• Stage: Appeal from post-trial motions
• State: Virginia

Outcome. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court's order allowing Cantrell to nonsuit his claims, ruling for the appealing defendants (twelve premises defendants and Huntington Ingalls), and remanded for further proceedings.

What the court held. A demurrer is a dispositive motion, so a case is 'submitted to the court for decision' under Code § 8.01-380(A) once demurrers have been fully briefed and argued, and the plaintiff can no longer take a nonsuit.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Garland Cantrell: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (premises owner)
• Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (premises owner)

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

770 S.E.2d 499 (2015)

ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC., etal., Appellants,

v.

Garland CANTRELL, Appellee.

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated,

Appellant,

v.

Garland Cantrell, Appellee.

Record Nos. 140748, 140749.

April 16, 2015.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is reversible error in the judgment of the circuit court.

Garland Cantrell worked as a boiler tender from 1987 through 2005. In 2013, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He thereafter filed an amended complaint against 17 defendants (the "Premises Defendants") who owned premises where he had worked on boilers, alleging that their negligence and gross negligence proximately caused his illness. [*500] Cantrell alleged that one of these Premises Defendants, Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Inc. ("Huntington"), was also negligent and negligent per se by failing to comply with federal worker safety provisions applicable while his parents were its employees, thereby causing him to be exposed to asbestos fibers they carried home on their clothes and persons.

The various defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint.[*] Cantrell filed memoranda opposing the demurrers and the defendants filed replies. After a hearing, the circuit court informed the parties that it would take the demurrers under advisement.

Several weeks later, the court notified the parties that its decision would be forthcoming. The following day, Cantrell filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News against all but four of the defendants remaining in the suit pending in Norfolk, alleging substantially similar claims. The day after filing his complaint in Newport News, Cantrell moved to nonsuit the amended complaint pending in Norfolk under Code § 8.01-380. The remaining defendants in the Norfolk proceeding opposed the motion, arguing that the claims pending there had been "submitted to the court for decision" within the meaning of Code § 8.01-380(A).

After additional briefing and a hearing, the circuit court entered an order granting Cantrell's motion for nonsuit. Twelve of the Premises Defendants and Huntington appeal.

Code § 8.01-380(A) provides in relevant part that "[a] party shall not be allowed to suffer a nonsuit as to any cause of action or claim, or any other party to the proceeding, unless he does so ... before the action has been submitted to the court for decision." The Court has previously determined that an action is "submitted to the court for decision" within the meaning of the statute when the case "is in the hands of the trial judge for final disposition, either on a dispositive motion or upon the merits." Bio-Medical Applications of Va., Inc. v. Coston, 272 Va. 489, 493, 634 S.E.2d 349, 351 (2006).

The Court has also previously determined that a demurrer is a dispositive motion. In Wells v. Lorcom House Condominiums' Council of Co-Owners, 237 Va. 247, 252, 377 S.E.2d 381, 384 (1989), the defendants filed a demurrer, a plea in bar, and a motion to dismiss prior to the plaintiff's motion for nonsuit. Each of these three pleadings was deemed dispositive for the purpose of precluding a nonsuit under Code § 8.01-380(A). Id.

Accordingly, the circuit court erred in granting Cantrell's motion for nonsuit after the parties had completed their briefing and argument on the demurrers. Neither the parties nor the court anticipated any further proceedings on the demurrers, which

therefore were committed to the court for its ruling. Thus, the case was "in the hands of the trial judge for final disposition" at the time of Cantrell's motion. Bio-Medical Applications, 272 Va. at 493, 634 S.E.2d at 351.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

This order shall be certified to the said circuit court and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.

Justices GOODWYN and McCLANAHAN took no part in the consideration of this case.

[*] Two of the Premises Defendants were separately dismissed or nonsuited. These defendants did not file demurrers and are not within the scope of this appeal.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Virginia asbestos laws
• Virginia asbestos exposure sites