Brucker v. CBS Corporation (2019)

Our plain-English summary of Brucker v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, February 12, 2019).

Harold Brucker served in the Navy from 1960 to 1967 and was exposed to asbestos aboard the USS Salisbury and the USS John R. Craig. He was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in 2015 and sued several manufacturers of products he said contained asbestos. He died in April 2016, and Christine Brucker continued the case as the remaining plaintiff. Crane Co. asked for summary judgment on the maritime strict liability and negligence claims against it. The parties agreed that maritime law applied. Under that law, the plaintiff had to show that Mr. Brucker was exposed to Crane's product and that the product was a substantial factor in causing his illness. The court applied the Sixth Circuit's bright-line rule that a maker is not liable for asbestos-containing products attached to its product that it neither made nor sold. It found that the plaintiff offered no evidence of exposure to Crane's asbestos-containing products beyond a metaphysical doubt, and made no attempt to prove substantial-factor causation. The court granted summary judgment to Crane.

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, Northern District of Ohio
• Decided: February 12, 2019
• Docket: Case No. 3:16-cv-206
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Ohio

Outcome. The district court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the maritime strict liability and negligence claims because plaintiff Christine Brucker could not show that Harold Brucker was exposed to Crane's asbestos-containing products.

What the court held. Under maritime law, a plaintiff must show exposure to the defendant's product and that it was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The Sixth Circuit's bright-line bare-metal rule bars liability for asbestos-containing products attached to the defendant's product that the defendant neither made nor sold.

Issues decided: The Bare-Metal Defense, Causation, Maritime Law and Navy Ships, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Harold Brucker: pleural mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Harold Brucker	Navy service member (the Navy); military service	USS Salisbury	1960-1967
Harold Brucker	Navy service member (the Navy); military service	USS John R. Craig	1960-1967

The defendants

• Crane Co. (manufacturer)
• CBS Corporation (manufacturer)
• Red Seal Electric Company (manufacturer)
• Viad Corporation (manufacturer)
• Warren Pumps, LLC (manufacturer)
• General Electric Company (manufacturer)
• IMO Industries, Inc. (manufacturer)
• Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Brucker v. CBS Corporation (April 20, 2016). The court denied Defendant Warren Pumps LLC's Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join the California defendants, so the plaintiffs' case continued.

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Devries v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2017). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturers on the widows' strict liability claims because they waived those arguments on appeal, vacated summary judgment on the negligence claims, and remanded for further proceedings.

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.

Harold Brucker, etal., Plaintiffs

v.

CBS Corporation, etal., Defendants

Case No. 3:16-cv-206.

February 12, 2019.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Christine Brucker, Individually and as Personal Representative of the estate, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Braly, Dean Omar & Branham, Christopher J. Hickey, McDermott & Hickey, David W. Henderson, Dean Omar & Branham & Rachel C. Moussa, Dean Omar & Branham.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele L. Larissey, Swartz Campbell.

Red Seal Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John A. Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A. Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Viad Corporation, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to, Defendant, represented by Bruce P. Mandel, Ulmer & Berne, James N. Kline, Ulmer & Berne, Kurt S. Siegfried, Ulmer & Berne & Robert E. Zulandt, III, Ulmer & Berne. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Kelley, Tucker Ellis, Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer, Judith A. Perritano, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, pro hac vice & Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis.

Crane Co., Cross-Claimant, represented by Michele L. Larissey, Swartz Campbell.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Michele L. Larissey, Swartz Campbell.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Colin G. Skinner, Oby Kramer Skinner & Reginald S. Kramer, Oby Kramer Skinner.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, INVALID ADDRESS Gallagher Sharp & Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Kelley, Tucker Ellis, Emily L. Mugaas, Meagher & Geer & Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bruce P. Mandel, Ulmer & Berne, James N. Kline, Ulmer & Berne, Jason T. Mohr, Foley & Mansfield, Kurt S. Siegfried, Ulmer & Berne & Robert E. Zulandt, III, Ulmer & Berne. Christine Brucker, Individually and as Personal Representative of the estate, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin D. Braly, Dean Omar & Branham, Christopher J. Hickey, McDermott & Hickey, Rachel C. Moussa, Dean Omar & Branham & David W. Henderson, Dean Omar & Branham.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JEFFREY J. HELMICK, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Crane Co. moves for summary judgment on all claims asserted against it. (Doc. No. 95). Remaining Plaintiff Christine Brucker filed a memorandum in opposition, (Doc. No. 98), and Crane replied, (Doc. No. 103).

II. BACKGROUND

While serving in the Navy from 1960 to 1967, Harold Brucker was exposed to asbestos aboard the USS Salisbury and the USS John R. Craig. Many years later, in 2015, Mr. Brucker was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma likely due to his exposure.[1] On January 28, 2016, he filed suit against several manufacturers of products to which he was exposed during his service, products which he alleged contained asbestos. Crane was one of these manufacturers.

III. STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant may meet this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence supporting one or more essential elements of the non-movant's claim. Id. at 323-25. Once the movant meets this burden, the opposing party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). It is not sufficient "simply [to] show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, Rule 56(e) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings" and present some type of evidentiary material in support of its position. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; see also Harris v. General Motors Corp., 201 F.3d 800, 802 (6th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment must be entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

IV. DISCUSSION

Crane moves for summary judgment of the maritime law[2] strict liability and negligence claims. For these claims to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff must show: "(1) [Harold Brucker] was exposed to [Crane's] product, and (2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered." Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005). Crane cannot be held liable for asbestos-containing products "attached or connected" to its product which it neither made nor sold. Id. at 495 (quoting Stark v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 21 F. App'x 371, 381 (6th Cir. 2001)). Although Plaintiff urges me to apply one of the fact-specific standards used by other courts to this bare-metal defense, the Sixth Circuit's bright-line rule is controlling here. See, e.g., Stallings v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 3:12-cv-724, 2015 WL 7258518, at [*4]-[*5] (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2015); see also In re: Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 873 F.3d 232, 235,239 (3d. Cir. 2017) (distinguishing the bright-line rule applied by courts such as the Sixth Circuit from fact-specific standards applied by other courts).

In this case, Plaintiff sets forth no evidence to raise Harold Brucker's possible exposure to Crane asbestos-containing products to anything more than a "metaphysical doubt." Further, Plaintiff makes no attempt to prove exposure to Crane asbestos-containing products was a substantial factor in causing Harold Brucker's mesothelioma. See Lindstrom, 424 F.3d at 492 ("[A] mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiff's place of work is insufficient. Rather, where a plaintiff relies on proof of exposure to establish that a product was a substantial factor in causing injury, the plaintiff must show a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, because Plaintiff cannot establish Harold Brucker was exposed — much less substantially exposed — to asbestos-containing products manufactured or distributed by Crane, summary judgment must be awarded to Crane.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Crane's motion for summary judgment is granted.

So Ordered.

[1] Mr. Brucker succumbed to his illness on April 23, 2016.

[2] The parties agree that maritime law governs here. (Doc. No. 98 at 20).

Sources

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