Wille v. AC Product Liability Trust (2007)

Our plain-English summary of Wille v. AC Product Liability Trust (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, December 28, 2007).

Charles Wille and Charles Rich, along with other plaintiffs, sued A-C Product Liability Trust and other defendants in federal court in Ohio. They claimed mesothelioma caused by asbestos. After a hearing, the judge ruled on several motions for summary judgment. The shipowner defendants argued that Wille was not a seaman. The court denied that motion, finding that reasonable minds could differ. It held that, under Chandris, whether Wille was a seaman was a question for the jury, and it found the cases Witte and Papai distinguishable. The court also denied motions by John Crane; Garlock Sealing, Anchor Packing and Coltec Industries; and A. W. Chesterton. It found the plaintiffs had offered enough lay or expert testimony to show sufficient exposure to those products. The defendants conceded that the plaintiffs had identified their products and that the products contained asbestos. Unlike in Lindstrom v. Bartel, the plaintiffs offered evidence that asbestos was released into the air above background levels. The jury therefore had to decide whether the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Trial dates were reset.

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: December 28, 2007
• Docket: Case No. 1:98 CV 12997, No. 1:98 CV 14094
• Stage: Summary judgment
• State: Ohio

Outcome. The court denied the shipowner defendants' and the product defendants' (John Crane; Garlock Sealing, Anchor Packing and Coltec; A. W. Chesterton) motions for summary judgment, leaving the plaintiffs' mesothelioma claims for trial.

What the court held. Under Lindstrom v. Bartel, a plaintiff must show more than that an asbestos product was present at the workplace; evidence that asbestos was released into the air above background levels lets a jury decide whether exposure was a substantial factor. Seaman status under Chandris is a jury question on these facts.

Issues decided: Causation, Maritime Law and Navy Ships, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Charles Wille: mesothelioma

• Charles Rich: mesothelioma

The defendants

• A-C Product Liability Trust
• John Crane (manufacturer)
• Garlock Sealing (manufacturer) · its asbestos trust
• Anchor Packing (manufacturer)
• Coltec Industries (manufacturer)
• A. W. Chesterton (manufacturer)
• Shipowner Defendants (shipowner)

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.

(2007)

Charles Wille, Plaintiff,

v.

A-C Product Liability Trust, etal., Defendants. and

Charles Rich, etal., Plaintiffs,

v.

A-C Product Liability Trust, etal., Defendants.

Case No. 1:98 CV 12997, No. 1:98 CV 14094.

December 28, 2007.

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

ORDER

JACK ZOUHARY, District Judge.

The Court conducted a Record Hearing on pending Motions for Summary Judgment on December 20, 2007.

Counsel present: John Cardello, Donald Krispin, Duane Marsden and Tim Swofferd for Plaintiffs; Evan Palik, Harold Henderson, Douglas Simek and John Patterson for Defendants.

After argument of counsel, the Court held as follows.

Regarding Shipowner Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment (Wille Doc. No. 198), the Court found that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions based upon the totality of the evidence and therefore the Motion is denied. The Court felt that the cases of Witte and Papai were distinguishable and, under the controlling authority of Chandris, the status of Plaintiff as a seaman, under the facts of this case, is an issue of fact for the jury. The Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendants John Crane; Garlock Sealing, Anchor Packing and Coltec Industries; and A. W. Chesterton (Wille Doc. Nos. 231, 235 and 237; Rich Doc. Nos. 194, 210 and 211) are also denied. As a general statement, Plaintiffs have provided sufficient lay and/or expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of whether there was "sufficient exposure" to these products by Plaintiffs that caused or contributed to cause their mesothelioma. Under the standard set forth in Lindstrom v. Bartel, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005), Defendants concede that Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence identifying their respective products and that their respective products contained asbestos. Unlike Lindstrom, Plaintiffs have done more than "a mere showing that a manufacturer's asbestos-containing product was on the premises of the deceased's workplace" and have offered evidence that asbestos was released into the air above background levels. Therefore, the jury is entitled to determine whether that exposure was "a substantial factor in causing the injury."

Trial date of January 15, 2008 (Rich) is vacated and reset, with agreement of counsel, to Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. (in Toledo not Cleveland) All pretrial filings, pursuant to the Trial Order filed contemporaneously with this Order, are due by January 8, 2008. Trial date of Tuesday, February 19, 2008 (backup March 20, 2008) (in Toledo not Cleveland) (Wille) is confirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sources

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