Larson v. Bondex International, Inc. (2011)

Our plain-English summary of Larson v. Bondex International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, July 15, 2011).

Dianna K. Larson and Merlin B. Larson sued Bondex International, Inc. and other defendants in federal court in Utah. Dianna Larson alleged she developed malignant mesothelioma from exposure to the defendants' asbestos-containing products during construction of her and her former husband's home. Before trial, plaintiffs asked the court to bar any mention of her ex-husband's first-degree murder conviction and of the book "Under the Banner of Heaven." The court granted the motion under Rule 403. It held that the former husband's identity and crimes had no bearing on whether she was exposed to the products, whether she developed mesothelioma from them, or whether defendants caused her damages. It also found that his crimes had drawn substantial local and national media attention, so any mention would be highly prejudicial. The parties may call him her former husband or use his first name, Ron, but may not mention the conviction or publications about it at voir dire or trial, and must redact exhibits.

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 Utah
• Decided: July 15, 2011
• Docket: Case No. 2:08-CV-333 TS
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Utah

Outcome. The court granted plaintiffs' motion in limine, barring defendants from mentioning Dianna Larson's ex-husband's murder conviction or the book about it at voir dire and trial.

What the court held. Under Rule 403, references to a plaintiff's former husband's criminal conviction are irrelevant to the exposure, disease and damages issues and unfairly prejudicial, so they are excluded.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Dianna K. Larson (resident): mesothelioma

The defendants

• Bondex International, Inc. (manufacturer) · its asbestos trust

Later decisions citing this one

One later decision in our library cites this one:

• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2013). The court granted Crane Co.'s renewed motion, joined by York, Honeywell, Goulds Pumps, Flowserve and Sepco, and excluded the plaintiff's experts' "every exposure" specific causation testimony, a ruling for the defendants over Arva Anderson.

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.

DIANNA K. LARSON and MERLIN B. LARSON, Plaintiffs,

v.

BONDEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., etal., Defendants.

Case No. 2:08-CV-333 TS.

July 15, 2011.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN

LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR PROHIBIT ANY STATEMENTS OR REFERENCES

BY COUNSEL OR ANY WITNESS CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S EX-

HUSBAND'S CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND

ANY STATEMENTS OR REFERENCES TO THE BOOK, "UNDER THE BANNER

OF HEAVEN"

TED STEWART, District Judge.

The Court has before it Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude or Prohibit Any Statements or References by Counsel or Any Witness Concerning Dianna K. Larson's Ex-Husband's Criminal Conviction for First-Degree Murder and Any Statements or References to the Book, "Under the Banner of Heaven" Pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[1] Plaintiff contends that any reference to her former husband's criminal conviction during voire dire or at trial would be irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The Court agrees. Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to Defendants' products containing asbestos during the construction of her and her former husband's home. The identity of her former husband and his crimes committed thereafter are wholly irrelevant to the issues of whether: (1) Plaintiff used and was exposed to Defendants' asbestos products, (2) Plaintiff developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of this exposure, and (3) Defendants caused damages to Plaintiff. Thus, the Court sees no need for Plaintiff's former husband's crimes or identity to be discussed either in voir dire or at trial.

Moreover, any reference to Plaintiff's former husband's crimes or identity would be highly prejudicial. As the parties are well aware, Plaintiffs' former husband's crimes received substantial media attention, both locally and nationally. Any mention of Plaintiff's former husband's crimes or identity would taint Plaintiff's case.

The Court is aware that Plaintiff has not specifically sought to exclude her former husband's full name from being used at trial or voir dire, but in the Court's own discretion, it finds that any discussion of Plaintiff's former husband's name is unnecessary and prejudicial. Should any prospective juror know the connection between Plaintiff and her former husband, this will come out through the Court's typical inquiry into whether any of the jurors know any of the parties. It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude or Prohibit Any Statements or References by Counsel or Any Witness Concerning Plaintiff's Ex-Husband's Criminal Conviction for First-Degree Murder and Any Statements or References to the Book, "Under the Banner of Heaven" Pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 144) is GRANTED. The parties may refer to Plaintiff's former husband by category (i.e., former husband, ex-husband, former spouse, ex-spouse, etc.) or by his first name (Ron) during voir dire and at trial. The parties are further precluded from making any mention of Plaintiff's former husband's criminal conviction, including any publications concerning that conviction, during voir dire and at trial. Parties should review all exhibits and redact them accordingly.

[1] Docket No. 144.

Sources

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