Farrall v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2013)

Our plain-English summary of In re Asbestos Litigation (Delaware Superior Court, August 19, 2013).

James Farrall and his wife sued Ford Motor Company and other defendants. They alleged that his exposure to asbestos from the defendants' products caused the mesothelioma from which he died in October 2012. In his deposition before he died, Mr. Farrall said he worked as a mechanic on his own and friends' Ford vehicles, and that he replaced brakes on Ford trucks while employed as a mechanic at several locations. At oral argument on June 27, 2013, the court granted Ford summary judgment on several claims, including failure to warn about asbestos-containing replacement parts made by others. The plaintiff then asked the court to reconsider the failure to warn ruling, relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 388 and 389. The court denied the motion. It found the plaintiff was repeating arguments already heard and had not shown that the court overlooked controlling precedent or misapplied the law. The court said Ford was not absolved of liability for removing its own original brakes, only for removing other makers' aftermarket brakes.

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: Delaware Superior Court
• Decided: August 19, 2013
• Stage: Post-trial motions
• State: Delaware

Outcome. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reargument, leaving in place its grant of summary judgment for Ford Motor Company on the failure to warn claim about asbestos-containing replacement parts.

What the court held. Under Delaware law, a manufacturer has no duty to warn of dangers from replacement parts it did not manufacture or distribute, and a motion for reargument fails when it only rehashes arguments the court already decided.

Issues decided: The Bare-Metal Defense, Failure to Warn, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• James Farrall: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Ford Motor Company (manufacturer)

Other decisions in this case

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

• In re Asbestos Litigation (May 9, 2006). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion in limine to exclude the plaintiffs' experts on general causation, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify that automotive friction products increase the risk of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
• Grenier v. General Motors Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (April 8, 2009). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court concluded that, despite factual errors in its earlier opinion, it properly denied General Motors' and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation expert testimony, so Grenier's experts remained admissible.
• Freeman v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (January 13, 2011). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs raised a genuine dispute of fact about whether Wilburn Freeman was exposed to Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing joint compound.
• Olson v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (January 18, 2011). The Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendants Crane Co. and CBS Corp. (Westinghouse) against plaintiffs, holding Idaho law would not make them liable for other manufacturers' asbestos-containing parts.
• Cruz v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (January 19, 2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not show under Texas law that exposure to its Ready Mix joint compound was a substantial factor in causing Cruz's mesothelioma.
• Ashworth v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (February 14, 2011). The court granted Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion on the survival action as time-barred, but denied it on the wrongful death claim, which was timely and had factual disputes on causation and product identification.
• James v. Albany Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (February 16, 2011). The court granted Albany International's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Charlene James because there was no non-speculative evidence that Robert James was exposed to an asbestos-containing Albany product.
• Newman v. Avocet Enterprises (In re Asbestos Litigation) (March 15, 2011). The court denied Avocet Enterprises' motion for summary judgment on the Newmans' remaining claims, because Newman's testimony about using Ventbestos raised a factual dispute on causation, and found the motion moot as to the withdrawn conspiracy claim.
• Henderson v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (March 22, 2011). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' post-trial motion for costs against Dana and Zoom, awarding $14,597.12 in costs plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
• Foucha v. CertainTeed Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (May 31, 2011). The court granted CertainTeed Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiffs Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they lacked evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing CertainTeed product.
• Foucha v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (June 3, 2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment against Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they could not show without speculation that Foucha was exposed to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific joint compound.
• Bowser v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (June 3, 2011). The court granted Parker-Hannifin's summary judgment motion in part (strict liability count and helicopter brake exposures before 1967) and denied it as to the airplane brake claims, so Plaintiff Jenny Bowser's remaining claims proceed.
• Davis v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (June 7, 2011). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Wesley Davis, finding he had not shown Crane-supplied asbestos products were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Clineff v. BP Amoco Chemical Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (July 8, 2011). The court granted summary judgment to BP Amoco Chemical Company, BP Corporation North America Inc., and Kvaerner U.S. Inc. because the plaintiffs' claims were filed after the two-year limitations period expired.
• Gordon v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (November 16, 2011). The court granted summary judgment to Dana (Victor gaskets) and UOP, and denied summary judgment to Elliott, Armstrong and Born, so the plaintiffs' claims against those three go forward.
• McCoy v. PolyVision Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (February 21, 2012). The court granted summary judgment to PolyVision Corp. against Janine and Marvin McCoy, predicting Pennsylvania law imposes no duty on an employer or premises owner to an employee's spouse for take-home asbestos exposure.
• Galliher v. R. T. Vanderbilt (In re Asbestos Litigation) (May 9, 2012). The court allowed plaintiff's late-disclosed geologist (Fitzgerald) to testify, excluded plaintiff's other late expert (Dr. Rigler), continued the trial to July 16, 2012 so defendant R. T. Vanderbilt could develop rebuttal evidence, and sanctioned defendant's out-of-state counsel $5000.
• Muse v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (December 31, 2014). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Honeywell International Inc. against James Muse and Clarice Roberts-Muse.
• Harris v. Deere & Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (May 10, 2017). The court granted Deere & Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Deere against the plaintiff, because under North Carolina law the plaintiff offered no evidence beyond speculation that the asbestos-containing parts he worked on were made or sold by Deere.
• Kivell v. Air Prods. and Chemicals (In re Asbestos Litigation) (August 30, 2017). The court granted Air Products and Chemicals Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence, strict liability and wrongful death claims, ruling against plaintiff Sandra Kivell.
• Kivell v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (August 30, 2017). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment on Sandra Kivell's negligence and strict liability claims, so Union Carbide won and the plaintiff lost.
• Kivell v. Murphy Oil USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (August 30, 2017). The court granted Murphy Oil USA Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence and strict liability claims brought by Sandra Kivell, so the plaintiff lost.
• Walsh v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (October 27, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiffs Phillip and Naomi Walsh, finding no evidence Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos parts the defendant was responsible for.
• Leathers v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (November 8, 2017). The court denied Pneumo Abex LLC's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Raymond Leathers' claims against Abex go forward to trial.
• Walsh v. Aurora Pump Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (November 29, 2017). The court granted Aurora Pump Company's motion for summary judgment against Phillip and Naomi Walsh because they did not show that Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos from Aurora's products.
• Sykes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (February 7, 2018). The Superior Court affirmed the Special Master's order excluding William Don Sykes's videotaped trial deposition at trial, a ruling for the defendants and against the plaintiff estate.
• Kivell v. Georgia Pacific Consumer Prods. LP (In re Asbestos Litigation) (March 26, 2018). The court granted Georgia Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Sandra Kivell's wrongful death and survival claims were time barred under Louisiana's one-year limit.
• Richards v. Copes-Vulcan (In re Asbestos Litigation) (August 8, 2018). The court denied the Richards plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their expert's report and for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Fairbanks, Ford and Goodyear.
• Call v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (December 12, 2018). The court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Marilyn Kay Call, holding Indiana's "but for" causation standard applies and her expert's opinion did not meet it.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (January 31, 2019). The Delaware Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, its alternative motion for a new trial, and its motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the plaintiff's jury verdict in place.
• Rowland v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (April 24, 2019). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against Jane and Douglas Rowland because they could not show that the joint compound they used contained Union Carbide's asbestos.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (March 3, 2020). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the $40.625 million compensatory verdict for Paula Knecht in place.
• Petit v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (August 31, 2020). The Delaware Superior Court granted Hennessy Industries' motion for summary judgment against the Petit plaintiffs, because plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos-containing brakes or to friable asbestos with the AMMCO machines.
• Pearsons v. Heidelberg USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (December 23, 2020). The court denied Heidelberg USA's summary judgment motion on causation, statute of repose and product misuse, and granted it only on the willful and wanton conduct claim, which Mrs. Pearsons did not contest.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (April 11, 2023). The court denied Hennessy Industries' motion for reargument, so its earlier oral denial of summary judgment on the duty-to-warn claim stood and the plaintiff, Lisa Estrada, prevailed on this motion.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (April 25, 2023). The Superior Court denied defendant Hennessy Industries' request to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of the earlier denial of its summary judgment motion, so plaintiff Estrada prevailed on this request.
• Braxton v. J-M Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (December 17, 2024). The court granted defendant J-M Manufacturing's motion for leave to designate responsible third parties, rejecting plaintiff Braxton's objections on pleading sufficiency, limitations timing and bankruptcy proofs of claim.

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.

IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION

JAMES FARRALL, and his wife, LEOTA FARRALL, Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, etal., Defendants.

C.A. No. N11C-05-257 ASB.

August 19, 2013.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

ORDER

JOHN A. PARKINS, Jr., Judge.

Plaintiff filed suit against various defendants alleging Mr. Farrall's exposure to asbestos from their products caused him to develop mesothelioma, from which he died on October 13, 2012. Defendant Ford filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 13, 21013, which Plaintiff partially opposes. At oral argument on June 27, 2013, the Court granted Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claims for strict liability, negligent design, punitive damages and failure to warn of asbestos-containing replacement parts. Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument or Reconsideration of the court's ruling as to Plaintiff's failure to warn claim. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. Mr. Farrall was deposed before he passed away. At his deposition, he testified that he worked as a non-occupational mechanic on his own and friends' Ford vehicles. He also testified that he replaced brakes on Ford trucks while employed as a mechanic at multiple locations.

At oral argument, the court granted Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim for failure to warn of asbestos-containing parts. The court held that under Delaware law, Ford did not have a duty to warn for an injury resulting from replacement parts manufactured by others. The court decided that Bernhardt v. Ford Motor Company[1] controlled and foreclosed placing such a duty on manufacturers.

A motion for reargument will be denied absent a showing that, "[T]he Court `overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts such as would affect the outcome of the decision.'"[2] Motions for reargument "should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court."[3] At oral argument, Plaintiff argued that under Sections 388 and 389 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and Dawson v. Weil-McLain, etal.,[4] this court should depart from the court's ruling in Bernhardt and find liability on behalf of Ford. In Bernhardt, this court held that a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of replacement parts it did not itself manufacture or distribute.[5] Plaintiff argued that under the Restatement, a manufacturer or supplier has a duty to warn of dangers associated with the use or intended use of its product if it has reason to know of those dangers. In support of this argument, Plaintiff claimed Ford required asbestos brakes, knew of the dangers of asbestos, and therefore, Ford should be responsible for injuries that result from asbestos exposure during replacement of its brakes, even after the original asbestos-containing brakes are removed.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that even if Ford knew of the dangers of asbestos, it did not require asbestos-containing brakes in its products and therefore, Ford did not have a duty to warn users of its products of the dangers associated with asbestos-containing replacement parts. The court subsequently ruled, "I'm sorry. I don't see any reason to retrench from this Court's previous holding in Bernhardt and I'm not going to." The court later clarified its ruling: "This does not absolve Ford from liability for the removal of it[]s brakes. But what I am [absolving] Ford from is the removal of other peoples brakes, the after-market brakes, essentially."

In its Motion for Reargument, Plaintiff makes the same arguments it submitted at oral argument. Plaintiff argues that Sections 388 and 389 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts require a finding of liability on behalf of Ford to warn of dangers

associated with asbestos-containing replacement brakes, notwithstanding the court's ruling in Bernhardt. Thus, the court finds Plaintiff is merely rehashing the argument previously heard by the court. The court has already decided this issue and Plaintiff fails to point to any area where the court misapprehended the law or overlooked controlling precedent. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] Bernhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 2010 WL 3005580, at [*2] (Del. Super.).

[2] Norfleet v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co., Inc., 2001 WL 989085, at [*1] (Del. Super Ct.) (internal citations omitted). [3] Id.

[4] C.A. No. 00C-32-117 ASB, Slights, J. (Del. Super. July 20, 2005) (TRANSCRIPT).

[5] Bernhardt v. Ford Motor Co., C.A. No. 04C-08-268 ASB, Johnston, J. (Del. Super. March 30, 2010) (TRANSCRIPT). At oral argument on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the court stated,

The Wilkerson case provides that the manufacturer's duty to warn is dependent on whether it had knowledge of the hazards associated with its product. The duty to warn does not require a manufacturer to study and analyze the products of others and to warn users of the risk of those products. Any duty is restricted to warnings based on the characteristics of the manufacturer's own product.

Sources

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