Barrett v. AW Chesterton Company (2021)

Our plain-English summary of Barrett v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, January 5, 2021).

Patricia Barrett, administratrix of the estate of Vincent James Barrett, Jr., and surviving family members sued many defendants over his death. They alleged he died of mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. The case began in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and was removed to federal court in Maryland. After fact discovery closed, four parties moved for summary judgment: John Crane Inc., Goulds Pumps LLC, Crane Co., and Schneider Electric USA (formerly Square D). Each argued that no evidence showed it played a role in causing Mr. Barrett's illness. No party opposed any motion. The court applied Maryland law, which requires proof that a defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. It found no evidence of that for any of the four and no contrary facts offered. It granted all four motions and dismissed the companies from the case. The opinion does not describe Mr. Barrett's work or where he was exposed; it incorporates an earlier opinion for those facts.

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: U.S. District Court, District of Maryland
• Decided: January 5, 2021
• Docket: No. 154); and (4) Cross-Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Vida Square D Company ("Square D") (ECF No. 155). All
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Maryland

Outcome. The district court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of John Crane Inc., Goulds Pumps LLC, Crane Co., and Schneider Electric USA (Square D) and dismissed them from the case, because no evidence showed their conduct was a substantial factor in Mr. Barrett's illness.

What the court held. Under Maryland law, a plaintiff or cross-plaintiff in an asbestos case must offer evidence that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm; without such evidence, and with no opposition, summary judgment is proper.

Issues decided: Causation, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Vincent James Barrett, Jr.: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• John Crane Inc.
• Goulds Pumps LLC (manufacturer)
• Crane Co.
• Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1992). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the compensatory judgments for the Balbos and Knuckles plaintiffs against Eagle-Picher and the other defendants, except that it reversed the Knuckles judgment against Porter Hayden for lack of proof, and it ordered a new trial on punitive damages against Owens-Illinois and Eagle-Picher.

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.

PATRICIA BARRETT, etal., Plaintiff,

v.

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, etal., Defendants.

Civil No. JKB-18-3911.

January 5, 2021.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES K. BREDAR, Chief District Judge.

Now pending before the Court are four motions for summary judgment brought by: (1) Cross-Defendant John Crane Inc. ("JCI") (ECF No. 143); (2) Defendant Goulds Pumps LLC ("Goulds") (ECF No. 144); (3) Cross-Defendant Crane Co. (ECF No. 154); and (4) Cross-Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Vida Square D Company ("Square D") (ECF No. 155). All four motions are unopposed and no hearing is required. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). The Court will GRANT each motion.

As set forth in the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 83),[1] this lawsuit arises out of the death of Vincent James Barrett, Jr., who Plaintiffs allege died as a result of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs, Mr. Barrett's administratrix and surviving family members, brought suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking recovery against numerous defendants, who Plaintiffs allege are collectively responsible for Mr. Barrett's illness. (Complaint, ECF No. 1-2.) Various Defendants also brought cross-claims against one another. (See, e.g., ECF No. 12-1.) The case was removed to this Court (see ECF No. 1), and the fact discovery period closed on September 29, 2020 (see ECF No. 148). In separate filings, JCI, Goulds, Crane Co., and Square D moved for summary judgment, each arguing that no evidence had been produced indicating that it had a role in causing Mr. Barrett's illness. No party opposed any of the motions. Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking summary judgment must show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact" and that it is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). If a party carries this burden, then the Court will award summary judgment unless the opposing party can identify specific facts, beyond the allegations or denials in the pleadings, that show a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). Here, JCI, Goulds, Crane Co., and Square D have all demonstrated their entitlement to summary judgment. Under Maryland law, to establish a defendant's liability for an asbestos-related injury, a plaintiff (or cross-plaintiff) must adduce evidence showing that the defendant's conduct was "a substantial factor in bringing about the harm." Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Balbos, 604 A.2d 445, 459 (Md. 1992). JCI, Goulds, Crane Co., and Square D have each shown that there is no evidence indicating its conduct was a substantial factor in Mr. Barrett's illness. (See ECF No. 143 at 5; ECF No. 144 at 5; ECF No. 154 at 5-6; ECF No. 155 at 5-6.) No party has opposed any of the summary judgment motions or provided contrary facts. JCI, Goulds, Crane Co., and Square D are all therefore entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Cross-Defendant John Crane Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 143) is GRANTED. John

Crane Inc. is DISMISSED from the case.

2. Defendant Goulds Pumps LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 144) is GRANTED. Goulds

Pumps LLC is DISMISSED from the case.

3. Cross-Defendant Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 154) is GRANTED. Crane Co. is

DISMISSED from the case.

4. Cross-Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Vida Square D Company's Motion for Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 155) is GRANTED. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company is DISMISSED from the

case.

[1] The procedural history and facts set forth in that Memorandum Opinion are incorporated by reference, and familiarity with this litigation is assumed.

Sources

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