Title: James A. Martin v. ACandS, Inc.

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES                                  ROBERT E. PAUL                        See Appendix A Paul, Reich & Myers, P.C. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania      
 MARK K. DUDLEY                     Young, Riley, Dudley & Debrota                         Indianapolis, Indiana                                                           
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA  JAMES A. MARTIN, Administrator of the Estate ) Of MADELINE MARTIN, Deceased, and ) Widower in his own right, ) Cause No. 49S02-0202-CV-117 ) in the Supreme Court Appellant (Plaintiff Below ), ) ) v. ) ) Cause No. 49A02-0008-CV-534 ACandS, INC., et al., ) in the Court of Appeals ) Appellees (Defendants Below ). ) 
 ______________________________________________________________________________  APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kenneth H. Johnson, Judge Cause No. 49D02-9501-MI-0001-295     May 17, 2002    SHEPARD, Chief Justice.         Madeline Martin allegedly died of lung cancer caused by asbestos fibers brought home on the clothing of her husband James, a laborer and bricklayer. The trial court dismissed the ensuing suit, holding that Mrs. Martin's personal representative could not bring a wrongful death action because Mrs. Martin did not qualify as a "user or consumer" eligible to pursue a claim under Indiana's Product Liability Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Martin v. ACandS, Inc., No. 49A02-0008-CV-534, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2001).  
     We granted transfer, and now reverse, holding that Mrs. Martin had standing as a bystander under the Act. See footnote   
   Analysis         The Act governs actions by users or consumers against manufacturers or sellers for physical harm caused by products. Ind. Code Ann. § 34-20-1-1 (West 1999). For purposes of the Act, "consumer" includes "any bystander injured by the product who would reasonably be expected to be in the vicinity of the product during its reasonably expected use." Id. at § 34-6-2-29. Who qualifies under this statutory definition is a legal question, to be decided by the court. Estate of Shebel v. Yaskawa Elec. Am., Inc., 713 N.E.2d 275, 279 (Ind. 1999).  
     We hold today in Stegemoller v. ACandS, Inc., No. 49S02-0111-CV-593, slip op. (Ind. May 17, 2002), that a plaintiff who allegedly contracted a disease as a result of contact with asbestos fibers brought home on the person and clothing of her husband has standing as a bystander under the Act. Our reasoning in that case applies here, and we reach the same result: taking into account the nature of asbestos products, Mrs. Martin had a cognizable claim as a bystander under the Act.  
     Mr. Martin claims that he has an independent cause of action under the Act, as a product user who suffered physical harm in the form of lost services. (Appellant's Br. at 6.) Because we find that Mrs. Martin had standing under the Act, we need not address this argument. In wrongful death actions based on product liability, See footnote  damages may be awarded for the surviving spouse's loss of services, love, and affection. Durham v. U-Haul Int'l, 745 N.E.2d 755, 765 (Ind. 2001) (loss of consortium "is a proper element of damages in a wrongful death action for the death of a spouse" and includes material services as well as love, care, and affection). Mr. Martin may therefore seek compensation for his loss based upon our holding that Mrs. Martin qualified as a bystander.  
   Conclusion        We reverse the dismissal of this action and direct that it be reinstated.  
 Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.  APPENDIX A: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES   For Flintkote Co.; J.M. Foster, Inc.; Bondex Int'l., Inc. DOUGLAS B. KING JAMES M. BOYERS Wooden & McLaughlin LLP Indianapolis, Indiana 
 For AlliedSignal, Inc.; Dana Corp.; Flexitallic, Inc.; Foseco, Inc.; General Motors Corp.; Quigley Co., Inc.; Union Carbide Corp. MICHAEL BERGIN DANIEL M. LONG Locke Reynolds LLP Indianapolis, Indiana 
 For Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. CHRISTOPHER D. LEE LEE F. BAKER Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, LLP Evansville, Indiana 
 For Riley Stoker Corp.; Congoleum Corp. REGINALD B. BISHOP Roberts & Bishop Indianapolis, Indiana 
 For Georgia-Pacific Corp. ANDREW J. DETHERAGE JONATHON D. MATTINGLY Barnes & Thornburg Indianapolis, Indiana 
 For ACandS, Inc; North American Refractories Co.; A.P. Green Services LISA M. DILLMAN 
 For A.P. Green Industries, Inc.; New Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.; Pittsburgh Metals Purifying; Plibrico Co. JASON L. KENNEDY Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, LTD Chicago, Illinois 
 For Chicago Fire Brick Co. BRUCE L. KAMPLAIN Norris, Choplin & Schroeder, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana 
 For Beazer East; Universal Refractories GUS SACOPULOS Sacopulos Johnson & Sacopulos Terre Haute, Indiana 
 For Hoosier Gasket Corp. BETTE J. DODD Lewis & Kappes, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 Footnote:  Defendants Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. and North American Refractories Co. have filed for bankruptcy, and this decision is thus subject to applicable rules of bankruptcy law as to them.  Footnote:  See, e.g., FMC Corp. v. Brown, 551 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 1990).