John Crane, Inc. v. Highsmith (2004)

Our plain-English summary of John Crane, Inc. v. Highsmith (Georgia Court of Appeals, November 24, 2004).

James Highsmith sued John Crane, Inc. and other companies in Georgia, claiming he developed mesothelioma from asbestos dust in their products. He died about six months after filing. His wife Lois, as executrix, took over the case and added wrongful death and loss of consortium claims. The other defendants were dismissed or in bankruptcy before trial. A jury found for the Highsmiths, and the trial court entered judgment for $1,266,377. John Crane appealed. It argued that the jury should have been told its products had to be a "substantial" contributing factor, and that it should have been told it was only a seller of the gasket material. It also argued the evidence of defect and exposure was insufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Georgia Supreme Court had already rejected the "substantial" factor argument in another John Crane case. The evidence on whether John Crane was only a supplier was unclear, and the charge covered both strict liability and negligence. The evidence showed that Highsmith worked as a mechanic at the plant, using or near John Crane gaskets that released asbestos fibers, and later supervised workers using them.

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: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 24, 2004
• Citation: 608 S.E.2d 690
• Docket: No. A04A1507
• Stage: Appeal from post-trial motions
• State: Georgia

Outcome. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of $1,266,377 for Lois Highsmith and the estate of James Highsmith against John Crane, Inc., rejecting its challenges to the jury charges and the sufficiency of the evidence.

What the court held. The court followed the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in John Crane v. Jones in rejecting the requested "substantial" contributing factor charge. It also held that a jury verdict stands if any evidence supports it, and that the evidence of defect and exposure was sufficient.

Issues decided: Causation, Wrongful Death and Survival, Design Defect, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• James P. Highsmith: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• John Crane, Inc. (manufacturer)

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• John Crane, Inc. v. Jones (Georgia Supreme Court, 2004). The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, upholding the $1,975,000 verdict for Laila Jones against John Crane, Inc. and the trial court's refusal to give a "substantial contributing factor" jury charge.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Jones (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2003). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the $1,975,000 jury verdict for Laila Jones against John Crane, Inc., upholding the jury charge, the evidence rulings and the denial of j.n.o.v. or a new trial.

Later decisions citing this one

One later decision in our library cites this one:

• Butler v. Union Carbide Corporation (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2011). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Maddox's specific causation testimony and its grant of summary judgment to Union Carbide, so Mrs. Butler lost.

Amounts in the opinion

• $1,266,377 (total)

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.

608 S.E.2d 690 (2004)

271 Ga. App. 13

JOHN CRANE, INC.

v.

HIGHSMITH et al.

No. A04A1507.

November 24, 2004.

Reconsideration Denied December 14, 2004.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

[*691] Ollie Harton, Freeman & Hawkins, Jennifer Treanor, Hawkins & Parnell, Elizabeth Padgett, for Appellant. Lane & Gossett, Roger Lane, Brunswick, for Appellees.

ADAMS, Judge.

James P. Highsmith filed a negligence and strict liability action against John Crane, Inc. and others[1] based on allegations that he had contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos dust from products manufactured by the defendants. Highsmith died approximately six months after the complaint was filed, and his wife Lois Highsmith, who was also the executrix of his estate, was substituted as the plaintiff and allowed to file an amended complaint adding claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Highsmith, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict in the amount of $1,266,377. The trial court denied John Crane's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial, and John Crane filed the present appeal to this Court.

1. John Crane first contends that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury that John Crane's products must [*692] have been a "substantial" contributing factor to Highsmith's injuries.[2] As John Crane acknowledges, this exact issue was before the Supreme Court following the grant of certiorari in the case of John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 262 Ga.App. 531, 586 S.E.2d 26 (2003), and the parties agree that the Supreme Court's decision in that case is controlling here. Our Supreme Court has now decided this issue adversely to John Crane, John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 278 Ga. 747, 604 S.E.2d 822 (2004), and thus for the reasons set forth in that opinion, we find this enumeration to be without merit.

2. John Crane also contends that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury that John Crane was not a manufacturer of the gasket material at issue in this case, and that, therefore, as a product seller it could be found liable only under a negligence theory. OCGA § 51-1-11.1. In its brief to this Court, John Crane asserts that it "merely packaged and sold gaskets in a container with the `John Crane' label. [It] had no input in the design or creation of the gasket material and made no modifications to the gaskets prior to re-packaging."[3] However, John Crane does not provide any citation to the transcript to show that evidence was presented at trial to show that it was merely a supplier of the gasket material, and it does not point to any of the numerous pre-trial documents it filed to show that this was one of the many disputed issues between the parties.[4] Instead, John Crane relies solely on a remark made by Highsmith's counsel during post-trial colloquy with the trial court that John Crane characterizes as a stipulation on this issue. However, the transcript further discloses that Highsmith's counsel went on to argue that testimony presented at trial showed that the gaskets used at the plant where Highsmith worked were John Crane gaskets with John Crane's name on them, and that John Crane had not put forth any evidence that it was not the manufacturer of these gaskets. Based on this argument, the trial court denied John Crane's motion for directed verdict on this issue. Moreover, the court's charge to the jury adequately instructed the jury on theories of both strict liability and negligence. Since the evidence here was unclear as to whether John Crane was merely a supplier of the gasket material used in the plant where Highsmith worked, we cannot say that the trial court erred by refusing to give the requested charge. See Buchan v. Lawrence Metal Products, Inc., 270 Ga.App. 517, 607 S.E.2d 153 (2004) (defendant can be both a manufacturer and a seller of a product); Dean v. Toyota Indus. Equip. Mfg., 246 Ga.App. 255, 257(1), 540 S.E.2d 233 (2000) (same).

3. John Crane contends the trial court erred by denying its motions for directed verdict and its motion for j.n.o.v. and new trial because Highsmith failed to prove that its products were defective, and because there was insufficient evidence that Highsmith was exposed to its products.

Where a jury returns a verdict and it has the approval of the trial judge, the same must be affirmed on appeal if there is any evidence to support it as the jurors are the sole and exclusive judges of the weight and credit given the evidence. The appellate court must construe the evidence with every inference and presumption in

favor of upholding the verdict, and after judgment, the evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict even where the evidence is in conflict. As long as there is some evidence to support the verdict, the denial of a [*693] defendant's motion for (j.n.o.v.) will not be disturbed.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 262 Ga.App. at 537, 586 S.E.2d 26.

Viewed in this light, the evidence presented in this case was sufficient to meet plaintiff's burden of showing both that John Crane's products were defective in that these products released respirable asbestos fibers, and that James Highsmith was directly exposed to John Crane's defective products during the time he worked as a mechanic at the plant, and that he continued to work in close proximity to others who were using John Crane's products after he was promoted to a supervisory position. This enumeration is thus also without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

RUFFIN, P.J., and ELDRIDGE, J., concur.

[1] The other defendants either were dismissed or filed bankruptcy prior to trial.

[2] The trial court gave the following charge, which was agreed to by the parties except for the omission of the word "substantial": Proximate cause requires a showing by the plaintiff that the defendant's negligence was a factor in bringing about the loss. Where several negligent acts may have produced the plaintiff's injury, to be considered the proximate cause, an individual defendant's tortious conduct must constitute a contributing factor in bringing about the plaintiff's damages. To hold an individual defendant liable the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that more than likely their exposure to a particular defendant's product was a factor in producing their injuries.

[3] John Crane does not appear to dispute that it manufactured some of the packing that was used in the plant where Highsmith worked. [4] The record and transcript in this case consists of twenty-one volumes, contained in two boxes.

Sources

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