WHOLE COURT

N O T IC E : M otions for re c ons i de r a tion m us t be

phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our cle r k’s off i c e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s /

M ar ch 30, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 4A1 5 8 7

. SCAPA DRYER FABRICS, INC. v . KNIGHT et al

.

M CFADDEN, J ud g e.

Scap a Dry er Fab ri cs

, In c., ap p eal s fro m t h e ju d g m en t en t ered o n a ju ry v erd i ct

fi nd i ng t h at Scap a n eg l i g en tl y ex p o s ed Ro y K n i g ht t o a t o x i c s ub s t an ce, ai rb o rn e

as b es t o s fi b ers

, an d t h a t th i s ex p o s u re w as a co n t ri b u t in g p ro x i m at e cau s e o f h i s

d ev el o p m e n t o f m al i gn an t m es o t h el i o m a. Kn i g h t an d h i s w i fe, Mi lv a Kn i g ht

(cl a i m i n g l o s s of co ns o rt i u m ), s u ed Scap a fo r neg l i g en ce i n p ro du ct l i ab i l i t y an d

p rem i s es l i ab i l i t y act i on s

. T h e Kn i g h ts cl ai m ed t h at wh en Kn i g ht wo r k e d as an

i n d ep en den t co n t ract o r d o in g s h eet m et al w o rk at t h e Scap a p l an t i n W ay cro ss

b et ween 1 9 6 7 an d 1 9 7 3

, h e was ex p o s ed t o ai rb o rn e as b es t o s fi b ers co n t ai ned i n y arn

u s ed b y Scap a t o weav e d ry er fel t s at th e p l an t

, an d t o as b es t os fi b ers co n t ai n ed inp i p e an d b o i l e r i n s u l at i o n th at Scap a m ai n tai n ed o n t h e p rem i s es

, an d t h at t h es e

ex p os u res co n t ri b u t ed t o h i s d ev el o p m en t o f m es ot h el i o m a, d iag n o s ed i n 2 0 0 9

.

Th e Kn i g ht s al s o s u ed Un io n C a r b i d e Co rp orat i o n

, cl ai m i n g t h at K n i g h t ’ s

m es o t h el i o m a was cau sed b y h i s ex p o s u re t o as bes t o s wh i ch U n i o n Carb i de h ad s o ld

t o n o n -p art y Geo rg i a Paci fi c, LLC. Th e Kn i g h t s al leg ed t h at Geo rg i a Paci fi c h ad u s ed

t h e as b es t o s t o m an u fact u re a jo i n t co m p o u n d an d t h at K

n i g h t was ex p os ed t o t h e

as b es t o s d u ri n g d ry wal l i n s tal l at i o n at h i s h o u s e b et ween 1 97 3 an d 1 97 5

.

Du ri n g th e t ri al on t h es e cl ai m s

, th e ju ry co n s i d ered ev i den ce t h at K n i g h t was

al s o ex po s ed d u ri ng h i s l i f e t o as b es t o s fi b ers co n t ai n ed i n m u l t i p le o t h er p ro d u ct s

a n d co n s i d ered wh et h er 2 9 ad d i t i o n al n o n -p art y en t i t i es as s o ci at ed wi t h t h e s e

p ro d u c t s were at fau l t fo r Kn i g h t ’ s d ev el o p m en t o f m es o t h el i o m a, as p ro v i d ed in

OCGA § 5 1 -1 2-3 3 (c). Th e ju ry fo u n d th at Kn i g h t ’ s m es o t h el i o m a was p ro x i m at el y

cau s ed i n p art b y th e n eg l i g en ce o f d efen d an t s Scap a an d Un i o n Carb i d e, an d i n p art

b y t h e neg li g en ce o f n o n -p art y Geo rg i a Paci fi c. Pu rs u an t t o OCGA § 5 1 -1 2 -3 3 (c),

t h e ju ry as s es s ed percen t ag es o f fau l t as fo l l o w s : 4 0 percen t t o Scap a; 40 p ercen t to

Un i on Carb i d e; an d 2 0 p ercen t t o Geo rg i a Paci fi c. Bas ed o n t he ju ry v erd i ct as s es s i n g

4 0 percen t o f t h e fau lt t o Scap a, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered ju dg m en t ag ai n s t Scap a i n t h e

am ou n t o f $ 4 ,1 8 7 ,0 6 8.9 5

.

2On ap p eal

, Scap a ch al l en g es t h e s u ffi ci en cy of t h e ev i den ce s u p p o rt i n g t h e

ju ry ’ s verd i ct o f l i ab i l i ty

, t h e s ci en t i fi c rel iab i l i t y o f an ex pert wi t n es s ’ t es ti m o n y

, t h e

l ack of a h eari ng p ri o r to t h e ad m i s s i o n o f t h at ex p ert t es t i m on y

, t h e j u ry ’ s fai l u re to

al l o cat e fau l t t o o t h er n o n -p art i es su b m i t t ed o n t h e v erd i ct fo rm

, an d cert ai n ju ry

ch arg e d eci s i o n s an d e v i d e n t iary ru l i n g s b y t he t ri al co u rt

. H o wev er, t h ere was

s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t h e v erd i ct

, t h e ex pert w i t n e s s ’ t es t i m o n y was

s ci en t i fi cal l y re l i ab l e, a h eari n g as t o t h e ad m is si b i l i t y of t h e t es t i m o ny was n ot

m an d at o ry

, t h e ju ry was n ot req u i red t o al l o cat e fau l t t o o th ers

, an d t h ere h as b een n o

s h o wi n g o f b o t h h arm an d erro r as t o an y ju ry ch arg e o r ev i den t i ary ru l i n g s

.

Acco rd in g ly , we affi rm

.

1

. S u f f ici en cy o f t h e evi d en ce.

Scap a co n t en d s t h at t h e t r i a l co u rt erred i n d en y i n g i t s m o t i on fo r a d i rect ed

v erd i ct as t o l i ab i li t y becau se t h ere i s n o ev i den ce sh o wi n g th at K ni g h t was ex p o s ed

t o as b es t o s wh i l e h e wo rk ed at t h e Scap a p l an t o r th at Scap a h ad s u peri o r k n o wl ed g e

o f t h e ri sk . Th e co n t en t i on i s wi t h o u t m eri t

.

Th ere i s a p res u m

p t i o n i n f

av o r o f th e v al i d i t y o f v erd i ct s

. Th erefo re, aft er th e ren d i t i o n o f a verd i ct

, ev ery p res u m pt i o n

, i n feren ce,

an d al l ev i d en ce m

u st b e co ns t ru ed m o st fav o rab l y to ward u p h o l d in g th e

v erd ict

. Nei t h er a di rect ed v erd i ct n o r a j.n .o

. v

. can be g ran t ed wh ere

t h e r e i s s o m e ev i d en ce t o s u pp o rt t h e v erd i ct

. W h ere ev i d en ce i s i n

3co n fl i ct

, t h e g ran t o f su ch m ot i on s i s erro r. On l y wh en t here i s n o

ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt t he v erd i ct can ei t h er a di rect ed v erd i ct o r j.n

. o .v

. be

g ran ted

, b e c a u s e t h e ev i d en ce d em an ds a v erd i ct co n t rary t o t hat

ret u rn ed b y

t h e ju ry

.

Ren ta l Eq u i

p men t Gr o u

p v. MACI, LLC

, 2 6 3 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 5

, 1 5 7 (1 ) (5 8 7 SE2 d 3 6 4 )

(2 0 0 3) (ci t at i o n s an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Co n st ru ed i n f

a v o r o f t h e v erd i ct

, t he ev i d en ce s h o w s t h at Kn i g h t was

d i ag n o s ed i n 2 0 09 wi t h m al i gn an t m es o t h el i o m a, can cer o f t h e p leu ral l i n i n g o f t h e

l u n g s ; th at t h i s d i s eas e i s cau s ed b y i n h al at i o n of ai rb o rn e as b es t o s fi b ers ; an d t h at

t h e d i s eas e m ay o ccu r d ecad es aft er ex p o s ure t o a s b e s t o s

. Co n t rary t o Scap a’ s

co n ten t i o n

, t h ere was ev i d en ce t h at Kn i g h t was ex p o s ed t o as b es t o s d u ri n g p eri od s

fro m 1 9 67 t o 1 9 7 3 w h en h e wo rk ed at t h e Scap a p l an t

. T h ere was al s o ev i d en ce t h at

,

fro m 1 9 59 t h ro u g h t h e m i d 1 9 8 0 s

, Kn i g ht was ex p o s ed to as b es t o s wh i l e d o i n g wo rk

u n rel at ed t o Scap a in v o l v i n g m u l t i p l e as b es t o s -co n t ai n i ng p ro d u c t s i n s h eet m et al

wo rk

, p l u m

b i n g wo rk

, d ry wal l wo rk

, au to m o b i l e cl ut ch an d b rak e wo rk

, an d ro o fi n g

an d s hi n g l i n g wo rk

.

As t o as b es t o s ex p o s ure at t ri b u t ab le t o Scap a, t h e Kn i g ht s p ro d u ced ev i d en ce

t h at

, wh i le Kn i g h t wo rk ed a t t h e Scap a p l an t

, h e w as ex p o s ed t o ai rb o rn e as b es t o s

fi bers fro m : (1 ) as b es to s-co n t ai n i n g y arn u s ed b y Scap a t o weav e d ry er f e l t s at t h e

4p l an t ; an d (2 ) as b es t o s -co n t ai n i n g p i p e an d b o i l er i n s ul at io n t hat h e wo rk ed aro u n d

wh en t h e i n s u lat i o n was rem o v ed

. Ev i d en ce s h owed th at

, b et ween 1 9 6 7 an d 1 9 7 3,

Kn i gh t wo rk ed at t h e Scap a p l an t on “ s ev eral ” o r “ m u l t i p l e ” o c cas i o n s as an

i n d e p en d en t co n t ract o r. Kn i g h t was p res en t at t h e Scap a p l an t i n p ro xi m i t y t o t h e

weav i n g l o o m s w h en t he lo o m s were u s i n g as b es t o s -co n t ai n in g y arn to w eav e d ry er

fel t s

. Du ri n g t h e weav i n g pro ces s

, ai rb o rn e as b es t o s fi b ers were s crap ed o ff t h e y arn

,

an d as b es t o s -co n t ai n i n g l i n t o r d u s t was creat ed i n t h e p ro ces s

. Th ere was ev i d en ce

t h at Scap a k n ew o r sh o ul d h av e k n o wn ab o u t t h e h eal t h d an g ers o f as b es t o s ex p o s u re

as a res ul t of t h e weav i n g p ro ces s at i t s p l an t

, b ut d id n o t warn ab o u t t h e dan g ers

, o r

t ak e an y s t ep s t o p r o t e c t p l a n t wo rk ers fro m t h e d an g ers

, p ri o r t o 1 9 7 4

. Ot h er

ev i d e n c e s h owed t h at i n s u l at io n o n p i p i n g an d b o i l ers at th e Scap a p l an t co n t ai n ed

as b es t o s

. Kn ig h t wo rk ed in p ro x i m i t y t o t he p i p i n g an d b o il er i n s u l at i o n wh en t h e

i n s u l at i o n was rem o v ed rele a sin g ai rb o rn e d us t fro m t h e i n su l at i o n

. Th e ev i d en ce was

s u ff i c i e n t t o s h o w th at as bes t o s -co n t ai n i n g p ro d u ct s were u s ed

, p ro d uced

, o r

m ai n t ai n ed at t h e Scap a p l an t in a m an n er wh i ch rel eas ed ai rb o rn e as b es t os fi b ers

,

an d t h at Kn i g h t was at t h e p l an t i n p ro x i m i t y to t h o s e as b es t os fi b ers wh en t h ey were

rel eas ed

.

5Hav i n g rev i ewed al l t h e ev i d en ce, we co n cl u d e t h a t t h ere was su ffi ci en t

ev i d en ce s u p p o rt i n g t h e ju ry ’ s fi n d i n g o f l i ab il i t y an d t h erefo re “ w e fi n d n o erro r in

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f [Scap a’ s ] m ot i on fo r a d i rect ed v erd i ct o n l i a b i l i t y .” Eco

Cl ea n, In c. v. Br o wn , 3 2 4 Ga. Ap p . 5 2 3, 5 2 9 (3 ) (7 4 9 SE2 d 4 ) (2 0 1 3).

2

. Exp er t t es t i mo n y.

In ch al l en gi n g t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t he ev id en ce, Scap a fu rt h er cl ai m s th at as to

t h e i s s u e o f s p eci fi c cau s at i o n, t h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e K n i g h t ’s ex p ert

, Dr. J erro ld

Ab rah am

, i s fo u n d ed o n j u n k s ci en ce. Co n se que ntly

, Scap a, m ai nt ai n s

, t hat t es t i m o ny

i s i n ad m i s s i b l e un d er t h e ru le ad o p t ed fo r t h e fed eral co u rt s in Da u b e r t v

. M er rel l

Do w P h a r ma ceu t ica l

s

, 5 0 9 U. S. 5 79 (1 1 3 SCt 2 7 8 6

, 12 5 L E2 d 4 6 9) (1 9 9 3), an d fo r

Geo rg i a - i n ci v il cas es on l y - b y s tat u t e. See fo rm er OCGA § 24 -9 -6 7.1 (ap p l i cab l e

at t he t im e o f t ri al ); cu rren t OCGA § 2 4 -7 -7 02

. 1 Th e cl ai m i s wi t h ou t m eri t

.

In ad d i t i o n to p ro o f t h at Kn i g h t was neg l i g en t ly ex po s ed b y Scap a t o as b es to s

,

t h e Kn ig h t s were req u i red t o p ro v e t h at th es e ex p o s u r e s c a u s ed h i s m es o t h el i o m a.

1 Fo rm er OCGA § 2 4-9 -6 7 .1 was rep l aced by OCGA § 2 4 -7 -7 0 2

, wh ich ap p li es

t o an y m o t i o n m ad e o r h eari n g o r t ri al co m m en ced o n o r aft er Jan u ary 1

, 2 0 1 3

. Th e

p ro ceed in g s i n t hi s cas e t o ok p l ace i n 2 0 1 0 an d are co n t ro l l ed b y fo rm er OCGA § 2 4

-

9 -6 7

. 1. Al t h ou g h t h e fo rm er s t at u te co n t ro l s i n t h is cas e, t h e n ew ru le s et fo rt h in

OCGA § 2 4 -7 -7 0 2 m ak es n o s ig n i fi can t ch an g es t o t h e fo rm er s tat u t e an d co n t i n u es

ap p li cat io n of t h e st an d ard s i n Da u b e r t a n d p r o g en y fo r t h e ad m i s s i o n o f ex p ert

t es t i m o ny i n ci v i l cas es

.

6To rt cas es al l eg i n g n eg l i g en t ex p os u re t o a t o xi c s u b s tan ce i n v ol v e t w o t y p es o f

cau s at i o n

. Fi rs t

, g en e r a l c a u s at i o n ; “ wh et h er a s ub s t an ce i s cap ab le of cau s i n g a

p art i cu l ar i n

ju ry or co n d i t i o n i n t h e g en eral p o p u l at i o n .” Bu t l er v. Un i o n Ca r b i d e

Co r p

. , 3 10 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1

, 2 5 (7 1 2 SE2 d 5 37 ) (2 0 1 1 )

. S e c o n d

, s p eci fi c cau s at i o n;

“ wh et h er a s ub s t an ce cau s ed a p art i cu l ar i n di v i d u al ’ s i n ju ry .” Id

.

Ho wev er, wh ere, as h ere, t h e p l ai n ti ff h as m u l ti p l e ex p o s u res t o as b es t o s

i n v o l v i n g m

u l t i p l e d efen d an t s

, o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as h el d t hat th e pl ai n t i ff n eed n ot

p ro v e t h at “ each in di v i d u al t o rt feas o r’ s co n d u ct co n s t i t u t es a ‘ s u b s t an t i al ’

co n tri b u t i n g fact o r i n t h e i n ju ry .” Jo h n Cr a n e, In c. v. Jo n es

, 2 7 8 Ga. 7 47 , 7 4 7 (6 0 4

SE2 d 8 2 2) (2 0 0 4). Becau s e “ Geo rg i a l aw cl earl y co n t em pl at es d i fferi n g d eg rees o f

cu l p ab i l i ty am on g jo in t t o rt feas o rs ,” a p l ai n ti ff in su ch a cas e can es t ab l i s h p ro x i m at e

cau s e b y p ro v in g t h at “ t he i n d i v i d u al d efe n d a n t ’s t o rt i o u s co n d u ct h ad [b een ] a

co n tri b u t i n g fact o r i n b ri n g i n g ab o u t t h e p l ai nt i ff’ s d am ag es .” Id

. at 7 4 8

. In s o

h o l d i n g

, t h e co u rt s u g g es t ed in s t ro n g ly -wo rd ed d i ct a t h at a d e m i ni m i s ex po s u re i s

n o t s u ffi ci en t. Id

. at 7 5 0 (“ t h e ju ry ch arg e at i s su e w ou l d n ot hav e m i s l ed th e ju ry i n to

b el i ev i n g t hat i t co u ld award d am ag es fo r a d e m i n i m is ex p o s u re t o as b es to s ”). Bu t

t h i s is no t a d e m i ni m is ex p os u re cas e. Scap a w as res p o n s i bl e fo r co n s i d erab l y m o re

t h an d e m i n i m i s ex po s u re. As t h e t es t i m o n y o f D r. Ab r a h a m es t ab l i s h ed

, t h e

7ex p os u res fo r wh i ch Scap a i s res p o n si b l e were “ s ub s t a n t i a l cau ses ” o f K n i g h t ’ s

m es o t h el i o m a, an d t h e ju ry i n d eed fo u n d Scap a s u b s t an t ial l y l i ab l e in t h e am o u nt o f

4 0 p ercen t

.

Un d er Da u b er t

, t ri al j u d ges are as s i g n ed a g at ek eep i ng ro le t o “ en s u re t h at an y

an d al l s ci en t i fi c t es t i m o n y o r ev i d en ce ad m i t t ed i s n o t o nl y rel ev an t, b u t rel i ab l e.”

Id

. at 5 8 9

, 5 9 7 ; acco rd fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7 .1 (b ). Th e b u rd en of es t ab l i s h i n g

rel i ab i l i ty res t s o n t he p ro p o n en t o f t h e ex p ert o p in i o n an d m u s t b e es t ab l i s h ed b y a

p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce. Un i t ed S t a t es v. Fr a z i er

, 3 8 7 F3 d 1 24 4

, 1 2 6 0 (1 1 th

Ci r. 2 0 04 ); Al l i so n v. McGh an Med

. Co r p.

, 1 84 F3 d 1 3 0 0

, 1 3 0 6 (1 1 th Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ).

Ad m i s s i o n o r ex cl us i on o f t h e ex p ert t es ti m o n y i s wi t h i n th e “ b ro ad d i s cret i o n ” o f t h e

t ri al co u rt

. Mea ch a m v. Fr a n kl i n -Hea r d Co u nt y W a t er Au t h

. , 3 0 2 G a. Ap p

. 6 9

, 7 6

(6 9 0 SE2 d 1 8 6 ) (2 0 0 9 ). To t es t fo r rel i ab i l i t y u n d e r Da u b er t

, co u rt s as s es s t h e

v al i d i t y o f t h e ex p ert ’ s m et h o d o l o g y

, n o t t h e co n cl u s i o n s g en erat ed

, b y co n s i d eri n g

s ev eral fact o rs

, n on e o f wh i ch i s n eces s ari l y d i s p o s i t i v e - wh et h er t h e m et h o d o r

t h eo ry rel i ed o n h a s b een tes ted ; wh et h er i t h as b een t h e s ub ject of peer rev i ew;

wh et h er t h e t h eo ry h as a k n o wn o r p o t en t i al erro r rat e; an d wh e t h e r t h e t h eo ry h as

g a i n e d g en eral accep t an ce in th e s ci en t ifi c co m m un i t y

. Da u b er t

, 5 0 9 U. S. at 5 9 2

-

5 9 4

.

8Th e d i s s en t ad op t s Scap a’ s Da u b er t arg u m en t

, cl ai m in g t h at i n B ut l er v. Un i o n

Ca r b i d e Co r p

. , 3 1 0 Ga. A p p. 2 1 (7 1 2 SE2 d 5 37 ) (2 0 1 1 ), “ t h e m et ho d o l o gy

u n d erl y i n g [Dr. Ab rah am ’ s ] ‘ an y ex p o s ure’ o p in i o n (al s o k n own as t h e ‘ n o t hres h o l d ’

o r ‘ l i n ear n o n-t h res h o l d ’ m o del s fo r cau s at io n ) was reject ed as n o t t es t ab l e,

s ci en t i fi cal l y u n rel i ab l e, an d n o t t h e p ro d u ct o f rel i ab l e p ri n ci p l es an d m et h o d s u n d er

OCGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7.1 (b ).” Dr. Ab rah am ’ s offen di n g o p i n i o n

, th e d i ss en t s u m m ari zes

,

i s t h at “ ev ery ex p o s ure t o as b es t o s t hat M r. Kn i g ht ex p eri en ced at t h e Scap a p l an t was

a co n t ri b ut i n g cau s e o f h i s m es o t h el i o m a.

. . . [an d] t h at

, s in ce M r. K n i g ht ’ s ex p o s u re

t o as b es t o s at t he Scap a p l an t was m o re t h an zero

, t hat ex po s ure was a co n tri b u t i n g

cau s e o f h i s m es o t h el i o m a.”

Ho wev er, t here are a n u m b er o f t hi n g s wro n g w i t h t h e d i ss en t ’ s an al y s i s

. Fo r

o n e th i n g, o u r d eci s i o n i n B u t l er affi rm ed a tri al co u rt ’ s ex erci se o f h i s d i s cret i o n

. Th e

d i s s e n t ack n o wl ed g es t h is fact

, b u t p as s es o v er i t s s i g n ifi can ce. “ Th e i ss u e o f t h e

ad m i s s i b i l i t y o r ex cl u s i o n o f ex p ert t es t i m o n y res t s i n t he b ro ad d i s cret io n o f t h e t ri al

co u rt

, an d co n seq uen t l y

, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g t hereo n can n o t b e rev ers ed ab s en t an

ab u se of d i s cret i o n

. ” Ca r ter v. S m i t h

, 2 9 4 G a. Ap p

. 59 0

, 5 9 1 (1 ) (6 6 9 SE2 d 4 2 5 )

(2 0 0 8) (p u n ct u at i o n an d fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ). Here, t h e d i s s en t wo u l d h av e us rev ers e

t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ap p ro pri at e ex erci s e o f t h at d i s cret i on

.

9M o re p art icu l arl y

, as no t ed ab o v e, Bu t l er was a d e m in i m i s ex p o s u re cas e. Th e

d efen d an t i n t hat cas e h a d b een res p o ns i b l e fo r l es s t h an o n e p ercen t o f Bu t l er’ s

cu m u l at i v e as b es t o s ex p o s u re an d h ad ex p o sed h im to t h e le s s p o t e n t fo rm o f

as b es t o s

. Bu t ler

, s u p ra, 31 0 Ga. Ap p . at 2 2

. Th e ex cl u d ed o p in i o n in t h at cas e was

,

“ To t h e ex t en t th at t h e p at i en t was ex p o sed t o an y o f t h es e p ro d u ct s, t h ey co n t ri b u t ed

i n a cu m u l at i v e f a s h io n t o h i s t o t al as b es t o s do s e, wh i ch i s wh at cau s ed h i s

m es o t h el i o m a.” Bu tl er , s u p ra, 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p . at 2 3

.

Un l i ke B u t l er

, h o wev er, t h i s i s a s u bs t an ti al ex p o s u re cas e. Dr. Ab rah am ’ s

o p i n i o n ab o ut t h e ex p o s ure at i s s u e i n t h i s cas e was o ffered i n res p o ns e t o a

h y p o t h et i cal t h at co rres p o n ds t o th e fact s s et o u t ab o v e in Di v is io n 1, d et ai l i n g

Kn i gh t ’s a s b e s t o s ex p o s u re at tri b ut ab l e t o Scap a. Th e K n i g ht s co u ns el po s ed t h e

fo l l o w i n g h y

po t h et i cal q u es t io n s t o t h e ex p ert wi t n es s :

Q. An d I wan t y o u to as s u m e fo r t h es e h y p o t h et i cal s t h at Ro y Kn ig h t wa s

em p l o y ed at t i m es b et ween 1 9 6 7 an d 1 97 2 do i n g s h eet m et al wo rk i n a t ex t i l e

m i l l m ak i n g t ex t i les wi t h as b es t os -co n t ai n i ng y arn . Ok ay ?

A. Al l ri g h t

.

Q. An d I wan t y ou t o as s u m e t h at d uri n g s o m e o f t h e t i m es

, b ut n ot al l o f t h em

,

t h at Ro y K

n ig h t was at t h e t ex ti l e m i ll t h at th ere were weav i n g o p erat i on s

g o i n g o n. Ok ay ?

A. Ok ay

.

10Q. An d I wan t y o u t o as s u m e t h at at l eas t o n t wo s e p arat e o ccas i o n s M r.

Kn i g h t d i s t u rb ed t h i c k s et t led d u s t in t h e t ex t i l e m i l l th at was g ray i n co l o r

wh i ch h e as s o ci at ed w it h t h e y arn s b ei ng u s ed i n t h e m i l l . Ok ay ?

A. Al l ri g h t

.

Q. An d I wan t y ou t o fu rt h er as s u m e th at at o th er t i m es i n t h e t ex t i l e m i l l u s i n g

as b es t o s

, th at M r. Kn i g h t o b s erv ed s creen s i n wh ich t h ere was w h i t e d u s t

p res en t

.

A. Ok ay

.

Q. An d fi n al l y t hat

. . . M r. Kn i g h t i n h al ed so m e o f t h e d u s t t h at was p res en t

d u ri ng h i s w o rk at th is t ex t i l e m i l l

. Do y o u h av e an o p i n i o n g i v en t h at

. . . s et

o f h y p o t h et ical fact s t o a reas o n ab l e d eg ree of m ed i cal cert ai n t y as t o wh et h er

t h o s e ex p o su res wo u l d b e cau s e o f m es o th el i o m a?

At t h at p o i n t

, Scap a’ s co u n s el i nt erp o s ed a l ack -o f-fo u nd at i on o b jec t i o n

. Th ere

fo l l o w ed a co l l o q u y th at co n s u m es t h i rt een p ag es o f t ran s cri p t

, a t t h e en d o f wh i ch

t h e o b ject i o n was o v erru l ed

. Aft er t h e Kn ig h ts ’ co u n s el res t at ed t h e hy p o t h et i cal an d

Scap a’ s ren ewed ob

ject i o n was o v erru l ed

, D r

. Ab rah am t es t i fi ed

, “ t h o s e ex p o s u res

[fo r wh ich Scap a was res p on s i b l e] wo u ld hav e b een s u b s tan t i al cau ses fo r [Kn i g ht ’ s ]

m es o t h el i o m a.” .

Co n seq u en t l y th e Bu t l er i s s u e i n v o l v i n g d e m i n i m i s ex po s u re was i rrel ev an t

t o t h e cl ai m ag ai ns t Scap a. To t h e ex ten t t h e Bu t l er i s s ue aro s e i n t h i s cas e

, i t w a s

11res o l ved w h en t h e ju ry fo u n d no t l i ab l e t h e 2 9 en t i t i es as so ci at ed wi t h Kn i g h t ’ s o t h er

ex p os u res t o as b es t o s

.

It is t ru e t h at Dr. Ab rah am al s o o p i n ed

,

I h av en ’ t s een an y ev i d en ce t h at th ere is a s afe t h res h ol d fo r ri s k

o f m el an o m a. So

... i f s o m eo n e has a lev el o f ex p os u re t o as bes t o s

ab o v e t he am

b i en t am o u n t i n t h ei r l i v es

, t h at i n creas es th ei r ri sk

. I m ean o b vi o u s l y i f y o u h av e a tri v ial ex p o s u re, y o u r ri s k is m u ch

l o wer t h an i f y o u h ad a h eav y ex p o s u re. Bu t i f y o u ’ re t h e o ne

p ers o n t h at g et s t h e d i s eas e fro m a t ri v i al ex p o s u re, i t ’ s s t i l l

as b es t o s rel at ed

.

Ho wev er, s ay i n g t h ere i s n o kn own s afe t h res ho l d i s v ery d i fferen t fro m s ay i n g t h ere

i s n o s afe t h res h o l d

. 2 M o reo v er Dr. Ab rah am ’ s o p in i o n th at t h ere i s n o k n o wn s a f e

t h res ho l d i s n o t co n t ro v ers i al . Scap a’ s ex p ert

, Dr. Vi ct or Ro g g l i , ag reed : “ each an d

ev ery ex p o s u re th a t an i n di v i d u al w it h m es ot h el i o m a ex p eri en ces i n ex ces s o f

b ack gro un d l ev el i s a s u b st an t i al co n t ri b u t i n g fact o r i n t h e dev el o pm en t o f t h e

d i s eas e.”

An d wh i l e Dr. A b r ah am ’ s t es ti m o n y ab o ut t h res h o l d l ev el s b ears s o m e

s i m i l ari t i es t o th e t es t im o ny at i s s u e i n Bu tl er

, i t i s n o t t h e sam e. Bu t l er in v o l v ed a

2 Fo r t h at reas o n an d b ecau s e i t i s ap p aren t l y un d is p u t ed t h at t h e rel ev an t

ex p os u re i s cu m

u l at i ve ex p o s u re o v er a l i fet i m e, we q ues t i o n t h e so u n d n e s s o f t h e

Bu t l er co u rt ’ s an al y s i s

. Th e o u t co m e i n Bu t l er wo u l d b e b e t t er ju s ti fi ed b y a l eg al

an al y s i s o f p ro x i m at e cau se t h an b y a s ci en t i fi c an al y s i s o f cau s e i n fact

.

12cl ai m ag ai n s t an en t i t y res p o ns i b l e fo r l es s t han o n e p ercen t o f th e p l a i n t i f fs ’ s

ex p os u re. Here Scarp a h as b een h el d 4 0 p ercen t res p o n s i b le.

It i s b y no m ean s cl ear, m o reo ver, t h at wh at D r. Ab rah am m e a n s b y “ t ri v i al ”

i s eq u i v al en t t o t h e d e m i n i m i s s o r t o f ex p o s u re at i s s u e i n Bu t ler

, or t o wh at t h e

d i s s en t d i s m i s ses as an “ an y ex p o s u re” o pi n i on

. A s an ex am p l e of t ri v i al ex p o s u re,

Dr. Ab rah am o ffered “ s o m eo n e d o i n g l au n d ry o f s o m eo n e w h o b ro ug h t h o m e

as b es t o s o n t h ei r wo rk

cl o t h es .”

Fu r t h e r m o re, i n s t ead o f m i rro ri ng t h e o p i n i on o f t h e ex p ert d i sq u al i fi ed in

Bu t l er

, Dr. Ab rah am reco g ni zed t h e l o g ical d i ffi cu l t ies wi t h t h at so rt o f o p i n i o n.

Ob v i o u s l y ex p eri m en t s t h at i n v o l v e ex po s in g h u m an s u b ject s to preci s el y m eas u red

am ou n t s of as b es t o s are o ut o f th e q u es t i o n. Th e s i g n i fi can ce o f as b es t o s ex p o s u re i s

g en eral l y an al y zed in t erm s of th e ri s k i t creat es

, bu t o n ce a pers o n h as co n tract ed t h e

d i s eas e i t i s d i ffi cu l t to s p eak s en s i b l y o f i n creas ed o r decreas ed ri s k of b eco m i n g i l l

.

Co n s eq u en t l y as t o th e rel at i o n s h i p b et ween ch an g e i n ex po s ure an d ch an ge i n ri s k,

“ i t ’ s v ery h ard t o m eas u re s m al l l ev el s .”

M o reo v er t h e “ m et ho do l o g y ” unde r ly ing D r

. A b rah am ’ s op i n i o n - b y wh i ch we

u n d ers t an d t h e d i s s en t t o refer to h i s reas o ni n g - un ex cep t io n ab l e. Th e ex p ert o p i n i o n

i n q ues t io n - t h at

, i f a h y

p o t het i cal p at i en t h as h ad o n e “ t ri vi al ” ex p o s u re t o as b es t o s

13an d n o o t h er ex p o su re, b u t n ev ert h el es s co n t ract s as bes t o s, t h at t ri v i a l ex p o s u re

wo u l d b e t h e c a u s e o f th e d i s eas e - was fo u n d ed on hi s u nd erl y i n g o p in i o n t h at

as b es t o s i s t h e o n l y k n o w n cau se o f m es o t h el i o m a. Ag ai n

, t h at u n d erl y i n g op i n i o n i s

n o t co n t ro v ers i al ; Scarp a’ s ex p ert

, Dr. Ro g g l i ag reed

. Dr. A b rah am ’ s s tat ed b as i s fo r

t h at u n d erl y in g op i n i o n is t h at

, wh i l e “ t h ere i s s o m e d i sp u t e on t h i s i n th e l i t erat u re,”

Dr. Ab rah am ’ s ex p eri en ce h as b een t h at “ wh en t h ey are ap p ro p ri at el y an al y zed [b y

way o f ‘ l un g fi b er b u rd en an al y s i s ,’ t h at an al y s i s ] w i l l n earl y al way s s ho w ev i d en ce

t h at t h e p ers o n d i d i n d eed hav e as b es t o s ex p o s u re ab o v e th e b ack g ro u nd p o p u l at i o n.”

Co n seq u en t l y ev en as t o t h e o p i n i o n ab ou t a hy po t h et i cal is su e, Dr. Ab rah am ’ s

m et h o do l o gy i s fo u nd ed o n s ci en t i fi c i nv es t i g at io n an d is t h erefo re s u ffi ci en t u n d er

Da u b er t

. An d i n an y cas e, t h at o p i n i o n i s no t cen t ral t o h i s fu rt h er op i n i o n t h at t h e

ex p os u re fo r wh i ch Scap a i s res p o n s i b le was a su b s t an t i al cau s e o f Kn i gh t ’ s i n ju ry

.

Acco rd in g ly

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err i n ad m i t t i n g Dr. Ab rah am ’ s ex pert t es t i m o ny

an d h is o p i ni o n t h at Scap a i s res p o ns i bl e fo r a su b st an t i al cau s e o f t h at i nju ry i s m o re

t h an s u ffi ci en t u nd er Geo rg i a l aw. Jo h n Cr a ne , s up ra, 2 7 8 Ga. 7 4 7

.

3

. No h ea ri n g

b ef o re a d mi t t i ng exp er t t es t i mo ny.

Scap a co n t en d s t h at i t i s en t i t l ed t o a n ew tri al b ecau s e t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot

co n du ct a h eari ng b efo re ad m i t t i n g Dr. Ab rah am ’ s ex p ert t es ti m o n y u n d er fo rm er

14OCGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7 .1

. Ho wev er, as Scarp a ack no wl ed g es

, s u ch a h eari n g i s n o t al way s

req u i red . Fo rm er

OCGA § 2 4-9 -6 7 .1 (d ) p ro v i d es : “ up o n m ot i o n o f a p art y

, t h e co u rt m ay

h o l d a p ret ri al heari n g t o d et erm in e wh et her t h e wi t n es s q ual i fi es as an

ex p ert an d wh et her t h e ex p ert ’ s t es t i m o ny s at is fi es th e req u i rem en t s o f

s u b s ect i o ns (a) an d (b ) o f t h i s Co d e s ect i o n .” An d i n co n s t ru in g th e

l an g uag e o f a s t a t u te, t he wo rd “ ‘ s h al l ’ ” o rd in ari l y d en o t es co m m an d

an d no t p erm i ss io n

, w h ereas ‘ m ay ’ o rd i n ari l y d en ot es p erm i s s i o n a n d

n o t co m m an d

. Th u s

, we can n o t co n cl u de t h at th e t ri al co u rt was req u i red

t o co n d u ct a h eari n g o n t h i s i s s u e.

Ca r t led g e v. M o n t a no

, 32 5 Ga. Ap p

. 3 22

, 3 3 0 (3 ) (7 5 0 SE2 d 7 7 2 ) (2 01 3 ) (ci t at i on s

an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

4

. Al l o ca t i on o

f f a u l t

.

Scap a co m

pl ai n s t h at a n ew t ri al i s req ui red b ecau se t h e ju ry was m an d at ed by

t h e ev i d en ce t o al l o cat e fau l t t o o t h er n o n -p art i es

. Th e cl ai m is wi t h ou t m eri t

. Scap a

h ad “ a bu rd en t o es tab l i s h a rat i o n al b as i s fo r ap p o rt i o n i n g fau l t t o a n o n p art y ” an d

wh et h er i t “ m et t h at b u rd en g i v en t h e t ri al ev i d en ce p res en t ed [was a m at ter] fo r t h e

ju ry t o d et erm in e.” D o ub l e Vi ew Ven t u r es v. P ol it e

, 32 6 Ga. Ap p. 5 55

, 56 2 (1 ) (7 5 7

SE2 d 1 7 2) (2 01 4 ) (ci tat i o n s o m i t t ed ). It was t h e “ ju ry ’ s p rero g at iv e t o acc e p t o r

reject

, i n wh o l e o r i n p art

, t h e ev i d en ce s u b m it t ed [.] ” Mo n t g o mer y v. Ba rr o w

, 2 8 6 Ga.

8 9 6

, 8 9 9 (1 ) (6 92 SE2 d 35 1) (2 0 1 0 ). Th i s en u m erat i o n p ro v i d es n o b as i s fo r rev ers al

.

155

. S t ri ct l i a b i l it y j u r y ch a r g e.

Si n ce th ere was n o cl ai m b as ed o n s t ri ct li ab i l i ty

, we ag ree wi th Scap a t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt erred t o t h e ex t en t t h e ju ry ch arg e i n cl u d ed in s t ru ct i o ns rel at ed t o a cl ai m

o f s t ri ct l i ab i li t y

. Ho wev er, ev en as s u m i n g erro r, a rev iew o f t h e ch arg e as a w h o l e

rev eal s t h at an y s u ch erro r was h arm l es s

. “ [I] t i s wel l es tab l i s h ed t h at ju ry i n s t ru ct i on s

m u st b e read an d co n s i d ered as a wh o l e i n d et erm i n i n g w h et h er t h e ch arg e co n t ai n ed

erro r.” W es t v. Br ea s t Ca re S

p eci a li s ts

, LLC , 2 9 0 Ga. Ap p . 5 2 1 , 5 2 2 (1 ) (6 5 9 SE2 d

8 9 5 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

As an i n i t i al m at t er, i t b ears n o t i n g t h at t h e t erm “ s t ri ct l iab i li t y ” was n ev er

u s ed i n t he ju ry ch arg e. Th e l on e o b ject i o n ab l e ch arg e id en t i fi ed b y t h e ap p el l an t in

i t s b ri ef was th e i n s t ru ct i o n t h at “ [i ] f aft er b al an ci n g t h e ri s k an d ut i li t y o f t h e p ro d u ct

y o u f i n d

. . . th at t h e p ro d u ct s u ffered fro m a d es ig n d efect

, t h en t h e Pl ai n t i ff i s

en t i t l ed t o reco v er.” Ho we v e r

, t h i s ch arg e w as g i v en as part o f t h e co u rt ’ s fu l l an d

accu rat e i n s tru ct i o n s o n t h e l aw o f n e g l i g en ce an d t h e neg l i g en ce bas ed p ro d u ct

l i ab i l i t y cl ai m s i n t h e cas e. Th e co u rt pro p erl y ch a r g e d t h e ju ry o n n eg l i g en ce an d

t h ere i s n o th i ng i n t h e reco rd t o i n d i cat e t hat th e ju ry m ay h av e b as ed i t s v erd i ct o n

an i m p ro p er s tri ct l i ab il i ty t heo ry o f reco v ery

. Co m p are Go l d s mi t h v. Pet er

s o n

, 3 0 7

Ga. Ap p

. 2 6

, 3 0 (2 ) (7 0 3 SE 2 d 6 9 4 ) (2 0 1 0 ). A cco rd i n g l y

, an y erro r was harm l es s

.

16Fo s key v. Fo s k e y

, 25 7 Ga. 7 3 6 (2 ) (3 63 SE2 d 54 7 ) (1 9 8 8 ) (erro r i n ch arg e n ot

p reju d i ci al i f “ i t a p p ears fro m t h e en t i re reco rd t hat t h e erro r i s h arm l es s ”)

(p u n ct u at i o n an d ci t at io ns o m i t t ed ).

6

. Pu n i t i ve d

a ma g es

.

Co n trary t o Scap a’ s arg u m en t

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err in su b m i t t in g t h e cl ai m

fo r p un i t iv e dam ag es t o th e ju ry b ecau s e t h ere was so m e ev i den ce t o s u pp o rt s u ch a

cl ai m

.

If a to rt i s co m

m i t t ed t h ro u g h m i s t ak e, i gn o ran ce, o r m ere n eg li g en ce,

t h e d am ag es are li m i ted t o t h e act u al i n ju ry recei v ed

, fo r v i nd i ct i v e o r

p u n i t i v e d am ag es are reco v erab l e o n l y wh en a d efen d an t act s

m al i ci o u s l y

, wi l fu l l y

, o r wi t h a wan t on d is reg ard o f t h e ri g h t s o f o t h ers

. It i s n o t es s en t i al t o a reco v ery fo r pu n i t iv e dam ag es t h at t h e p ers o n

i n fl i ct i ng t h e d am ag es was g u i l ty o f wi l fu l an d i n t en t i o n al m i sco n d u ct

. It i s su ffi ci en t t h at th e act b e d o n e u n der s uch ci rcu m s t an ces as ev i nces

an en t ire wan t of care an d a co ns ci o u s i n d i fferen ce t o t he co n s eq u en ces

.

Ro s eb er r y v. Br o o ks

, 21 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 0 2

, 2 1 0 (4 ) (4 61 SE2 d 2 6 2 ) (1 9 9 5 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). Here, t h ere was ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch t h e ju ry co u l d h av e fo u n d

an en ti re wan t o f care an d co n sci o us i n di fferen ce t o t h e co n s eq u en ces b y Scap a.

7

. Omi t t ed

j u r y ch a r ges

.

Scap a ci t es W

i ng o v. Ha r r i so n

, 2 6 8 Ga. Ap p

. 15 6

, 15 9 (6 0 1 SE2 d 5 0 7 ) (2 0 0 4 )

fo r t h e p ro p o s i t i o n t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai l in g t o ch arg e t he ju ry th at “ Scap a

17h ad n o d u t y t o i n s p ect m at eri a l s o n i t s p rem i s es .” Scap a’ s rel i an ce o n W i n g o i s

m i s p l aced

. As an in i t i al m at t er, t h at cas e di d n o t i n vo l v e an y i s s u es co n cern i n g ju ry

ch arg es

. It d i d s t at e t h e l eg al p ri n ci p le t h at ord i n ary d i l i g en ce m ay no t req u i re an

i n s p ect i on o f p rem is es wh ere t h e o wn er d o es n o t h av e k n o wl ed g e o f th e d efect . Id

.

at 1 6 0

. Bu t i n t h e i n s t an t cas e, th e ev i d en ce sh o w ed t h at Scap a h ad k n owl ed g e o f t h e

d efect - as b es t o s - o n i t s p rem i s es

, an d th u s a ch arg e o n t h at l eg al p ri n ci p l e was n ot

req u i red

.

Li k ewi s e, Scap a m i st ak en l y ci t es Da l t o n v. 9 3 3 Pea ch t r ee, L. P.

, 2 9 1 Ga. Ap p.

1 2 3

, 1 2 7 (6 6 1 SE2 d 1 56 ) ( 2 0 0 8 )

, as su p p o rt fo r i t s cl ai m t h at t h e t ri al co u rt s h o u ld

h av e ch arg ed t h e ju ry “ t h at w h en p art o f t h e p rem i s es i s s u rren d ered t o a co n t ract o r,

t h e o w n er h as n o l i ab il i t y fo r in ju ri es ari s i n g fro m t h e co n t ract o r’ s wo rk .” Ag ai n

, t h at

cas e d i d n o t i n v o l v e an y ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n s

. M o reo v er, Scap a m i s s t at es t h e l aw s et fo rt h

i n Da l t o n

, wh i ch act u al l y reci t es t h e l eg al p ri nci p l e t h at a pro p ert y o wn er wh o

s u rren d ers p o s s es s i o n an d c o n t r o l o f i t s p ro p ert y t o an i n d ep en d en t co n t ract o r

g en eral l y i s n o t l i ab le fo r in j u ri es s u s t ai n ed b y t h e co n t ract o r’ s em p l o y ees

. Id

. at 1 2 7

-

1 2 8 (1 ). Th i s s u rren der o f co n t ro l p ri n ci p l e “ i s b as ed i n OCGA § § 5 1 -2 -4 an d 5 1 -2 -5

(5 ), wh i ch p ro vi de t h at an em p lo y er - fo r i n s tan ce, a p ro pert y o wn er h iri n g a b u i l d er

-

i s no t res p o n s i b l e fo r to rt s of i t s i n d ep en d en t co n tract o r u n l es s t h e em p l o y er ret ai n s

18co n tro l o v er t h e co nt ract o r’ s wo rk .” En g l a n d v. Beer s Co ns t

. Co

. , 2 24 Ga. Ap p

. 4 4,

4 7 (2 ) (4 7 9 SE2 d 4 2 0) (1 99 6 ). Here, Scap a was n o t b ei ng s u ed fo r t h e al l eg ed t o rt s

o f an y i n d ep en den t co n tra ct o r, an d i ns t ead was b ei n g s u ed by Kn ig h t h i m s el f fo r

Scap a’ s o wn al l eg ed n eg l ig en ce reg ard i n g as b es t o s o n i t s p rem i s es

. Id

.

In rev i ewi n g a t ri al co u rt ’ s fai lu re t o g i v e a ju ry i n s t ru ct i on

, “ we m u s t l o o k to

t h e ju ry ch arg e as a wh o l e, a n d i f t h e ju ry ch arg e as a w h o l e accu rat el y an d fu l l y

ap p ri s ed t h e ju ry o f t h e law t o b e ap p l i ed i n i t s d el i b erat i o n s

, th en t h e refu s al t o g i v e

an ad di t i o n al i n s t ru ct i o n , ev en i f t h at ad d i t i on al i n st ru ct io n were accu rat e, d o es n ot

am ou n t t o e r r o r.” Bu r d

et t e v. McDo wel l

, 3 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 50 7

, 5 0 9 (2 ) (7 3 9 SE2 d 2 8 )

(2 0 1 3) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). Scap a h as m ad e n o s ho wi n g t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s ju ry ch arg e as a wh o le d i d n o t f u l l y an d accu rat el y ap pri s e t h e ju ry o f t h e

ap p li cab l e l aw, o r t h at t h e fai l u re t o g i v e t h e req u es t ed ch arg es was erro r.

9

. Ad mi ss i o n o f exh i b i t

.

Th e t ri al co u rt d id n o t err i n ad m i tt i ng Pl ai nt i ff’ s Ex h i b i t 44

, an in t ern al 1 9 7 7

Scap a m e m o r a n d u m rel at i n g t o Scap a’ s s wi tch to p ro d u ct i on o f no n -as bes t o s fel t s

.

“ [T] h e ad m i s s io n o f ev i d en ce i s wi t h i n t h e s ou n d d i s cret i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt an d

ap p el l at e co u rt s wi ll n o t in t erfere ab s en t a b u s e o f t h at d i s cret i o n

. . . . [E] v i d en ce

h av in g a t en d en cy t o es t ab l i s h fact s at i s s u e i s rel ev an t an d ad m is s i b l e, an d n o m at t er

19h o w sl i g h t t h e p ro b at i v e v al u e, o u r l aw fav o rs ad m i s s i o n o f rel ev an t ev i d en ce.” Ha n d

v. S o u t h Geo r

g i a U r o l o g y Cen t er

,

_

_ _ Ga. Ap p

.

__

_ (1 ) (Cas e No

. A1 4 A1 8 5 4,

d e c i d e d M a rch 1 6, 2 0 1 5 ). Ex hi b i t 4 4 was rel ev an t t o m u l t i p l e i s s u es in t h e cas e

,

i n cl u d i n g t h e ex is t en ce o f th e a s b e s t o s hazard an d Kn i gh t ’ s ex p o s u re t o i t

.

Acco rd in g ly

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d no t ab u s e i t s di scret io n i n ad m i t t i n g t h e d o cu m en t i n to

ev i d en ce.

1 0

. Op en i n g

s t a t emen t

.

Scap a co n t en d s t h a t t he t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i n g i t s m o ti o n fo r a m i s t ri al

aft er t h e Kn i g h t s’ at t orn ey s t a t ed du ri n g h i s o p en i ng arg u m en t t h at Scap a h ad

“ em p l o y ed a l o t of p eo p l e an d ex p os ed a lo t o f peo p l e, i n cl u d i n g M r. Kn i g h t

, to

as b es t o s .” Ho wev er, “ [t ] h e d eci s i o n t o g ran t a m is tri al res t s wi t h i n th e s o u n d

d i s cret i o n o f th e t ri al co u rt

, an d we wi l l n o t d i s t u rb th at co u rt ’ s ru l in g ab s en t m an i fes t

ab u se. M o reo v er, u n l es s i t i s ap p aren t t hat a m i st ri al was es s en t i al t o t h e p res erv at i o n

o f t h e ri g h t t o a fai r t ri al

, t h e d i s cret i o n o f t h e t ri al ju d g e wi l l n o t be in t erfered wi t h.”

Mo n Ami In t er n

., In c. v. Ga l e

, 2 6 4 Ga. A p p

. 7 3 9, 7 43 (4 ) (5 9 2 SE2 d 8 3 ) (2 0 0 3 )

(ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Here, Scap a h as n o t sh o w n t h at a m i s t ri al was

es s en t i al t o p res erv at io n o f t h e ri g h t t o a fai r t ri al

, an d we t herefo re wi l l n o t i n t erfere

wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ex erci s e o f i t s d i s cret i o n

.

201 1

. Qu es t i o n in g o f S ca p a r ep r es en t a t i ve.

Scap a cl ai m s t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y ov erru l i n g i t s o b ject i o n s t o q u es t i on s

p o s ed b y t h e Kn i g h ts ’ co u n sel t o a Scap a rep res en t at iv e. A 19 7 5 i n d u s t ri al h y g i en e

rep o rt fro m Scap a’ s W ay cro s s pl an t

, ad m i t ted i n t o ev i den ce as Pl ai nt i ffs ’ Ex h i b i t 4 6,

m ad e a reco m

m en dat i o n t h at Scap a en s u re em pl o y ees n o t w e a r a s b es t o s

co n tam i n at ed cl o t h i n g h o m e fro m wo rk

, an d th at Scap a acco m p l i s h t h i s by p ro v i d i n g

wo rk cl o t h es

, sh o wer faci l i ti es

, an d ch an g e ro o m s

. Th e Kn i g h t s ’ co u n s el q u es t i o n ed

a Scap a rep res en t at i v e as t o wh et her, pri o r t o 1 9 7 5

, Scap a m ad e an y effo rt t o t ak e

t h es e p ro t ect i v e m eas u res

. Scap a’ s co u n s el o b j ect ed to t h e q u es t i o n o n t h e b as i s t h at

Kn i gh t was n o t a Scap a em p l o y ee an d t hi s i s “ n o t a tak e-h o m e cas e.” Th e tri al co u rt

d i d n o t err b y o v erru l i n g th e o b ject i o n

. M o reo v er, t h e t r i a l co u rt di d n o t err by

al l o wi n g t h e Kn i g h t s ’ co u n sel

, o v er Scap a’ s o b ject i o n

, t o q u es t i o n t h e s a m e Scap a

rep res en t at i v e ab ou t wh et h e r

, p ri o r t o 1 97 4

, Scap a co u l d p oi n t t o act i o n s i t t o o k to

p ro t ect wo rk ers o r o t h ers co m i n g i n t o t he p lan t fro m e x p o s u re t o as b es t o s

. Th es e

m at t ers were rel ev an t t o i s s u es of t h e ex i s ten ce an d ex p o s u re t o as b es t o s

, an d Scap a’ s

k n o wl ed g e, an d t h us t h e t ri al co u rt d id n o t ab u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n al lo wi n g s u ch

q u e s t i o n i n g b y co u n s el

. See Ha n d

, s u p ra (ev i d en ce h av in g a t en d en cy t o es t a b l i s h

fact s at i s s ue i s rel ev an t an d ad m i s s i b l e).

211 2

. Kn i g h t ’s t es t i mo n

y.

Scap a’ s cl ai m t h at Kn ig ht i m p ro p erl y referred to t h e y arn at Scap a as “ as b es t o s

y arn ” b ecau s e i t was n ot wi t h i n h i s pers o n al k no wl ed g e h as n o t b een p res erv ed fo r

rev i ew b ecau s e aft er th e t es t i m o n y

, t h e t ri al co u rt g av e cu rat iv e i n s t ru ct i o n s t o wh i ch

Scap a rai s ed n o o b

j e ct i o n

. If Scap a was d i s s at i s fi ed wi t h th e t ri al co u rt ’ s cu rat i v e

act i on

, i t s h o u l d h av e ren ewed i t s o b ject i o n o r m o ved fo r a m i s t ri al

, “ an d n o t h av i n g

d o n e s o, t h e as s i g n m en t o f erro r i s wi t h o u t m eri t. [Ci t .] ” Ken d r i ck v. Ken d

r i ck , 2 1 8

Ga. 4 6 0

, 4 6 3 (4 ) (1 2 8 SE2 d 4 9 6 ) (1 9 6 2 ). An d ev en i f t h e i s s u e h ad n o t b een wai v ed

,

an y erro r was h arm l es s g i v en o t h er ev i d en ce ci t ed ab o v e i n Di v i s i o n 1 s h o wi n g t h e

u s e o f y arn co n t ai n in g as b es t o s at Scap a.

1 3

. Li mi t i n g

t es t i mo n y o f exp er t

.

Ev en pres u m i n g t h at Scap a i s co rrect i n cl ai m i n g th at t h e tri al co urt s h o u ld

h av e perm it t ed i t s ex p ert t o op i n e ab o u t a n d q u an t i fy b ack g ro u n d as b es t os l ev el s

,

Scap a h as fai l ed t o s h ow an y h arm fro m th e ex cl u s i o n o f s uch t es t i m o n y

. S e e

W i l l ia ms v. S t a t e

, 3 28 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 6

, 8 8 0 (1 ) (7 6 3 SE2 d 2 6 1) (2 0 1 4 ) (ap p el l an t m u s t

s h o w h arm

as wel l as erro r i n t ri al co u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g ).

22Ju d

g men t a f fi r med

. B a r n es

, P. J., co n cu r s; Do yl e, P. J., Bo g

g s a nd Ra y, JJ.,

co n cu r i n t h e j u d

g men t o nl y i n Di vi s i o n 2 a n d f

u l ly o t h er wi s e; An d

r ews

, P. J. a n d

Br a nch , J., d i s s en t

.

23A1 4 A1 58 7 . SCAPA DRYER FABRICS, INC. v . KNIGHT et al

.

A N D R E W S , Pres i d in g J u d g e, d i s s en t i n g

.

I res p ect fu l l y d i s s en t fo r t h e fo l l o wi n g reas o n s : (1 ) t h e K n i g h t s fai l ed to

p ro d uce rel i ab l e an d a d m i s s i b l e ex p ert t es t i m o n y t o p ro v e o n th e i s s u e o f s p eci fi c

cau s at i o n t h at M r. K n i g h t ’ s ex p o s u re t o as b es t o s at t h e Scap a Dry er Fab ri cs

, In c.

p l an t was a co n t ri b u t i n g c a u s e o f h i s m es o t h el i om a; (2 ) t h e t ri al co u rt erred by

a d m i t t i ng un rel iab l e ex p ert t es t i m on y on t h e i s s u e o f s p eci fi c cau sat i on ; (3 ) t h e

erro neo u s ad m i s s i o n o f t h i s ex p ert t es t i m ony r e qui res t h at t h e ju d g m en t ag ai n s t Scap a

b e rev ers ed ; an d (4 ) u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

, t he cas e sh o ul d be rem an d ed fo r a n ew

t ri al

.

It was u n d is p ut ed t h at M r. Kn i g h t was di ag n o s ed i n 2 00 9 wi t h m al i g n an t

m es o t h el i o m a, a d i seas e cau s ed b y i n h al at i on o f ai rb o rn e as b es to s fi b ers

. Ev i d en ce

at t h e ju ry t ri al s h o wed t h a t

, f ro m 19 5 9 t hro u g h th e m i d 1 9 80 s

, M r. Kn ig h t was

ex p o s e d t o ai rb o rn e as b es t o s fi b ers fro m m ul t i p l e s ou rces i n v o l v i ng m u l t i p l eas b es t o s -co n t ai n i n g pro du ct s d u ri n g wo rk h e perfo rm ed wi t h s heet m et al

, p lu m b i n g,

d ry wal l

, au t o m o b il es

, an d ro o fi n g

. Th e ju ry co n s id ered ev i den ce th at t wo n am ed

d efen d an t s

, S c a p a an d Un i o n Carb i d e Co rp orat i o n

, an d 3 0 n o n -p art y en t i ti es

(i ncl ud i ng Geo rg i a Paci fi c, LLC)

, w e r e as s oci at ed wi t h t h es e as b es t o s -co n t ai n i n g

p ro d uct s

, an d n eg l i g en t l y ex p o s ed M r. Kn i gh t t o ai rb o rn e as b es t os d u ri n g t h es e t wo

an d a h al f d ecad es o f h i s l i fe.

As t o Scap a, ev i d en ce s h o wed t h at M r. Kn ig h t wo rk ed at t h e Scap a p l an t as an

i n d ep en den t co n t ract or d o i n g s h eet m et al wo rk on “ s ev eral ” or “ m u l t i p l e” occas i on s

b et ween 1 9 6 7 an d 1 9 7 3

. On s o m e o f t h es e o ccas io n s

, h e was n ear fel t weav i n g l o o m s

at t h e p l an t t h at p ro d u ced ai rb o rn e as b es t os l i n t o r d u s t

, o r was n ear as b es t o s

co n tai n i n g p ip e o r b o i l er i n s u l at i o n at t h e p l an t wh en t h e i n su l at i o n was rem ov ed an d

ai rb o rn e d u s t was rel eas ed

. As t o Un i o n Carb i d e an d Geo rg i a Paci fi c, ev i d en ce

s h o wed t h at

, wh i l e M r. K n ig h t was h av i n g a h o u s e c o n s t ru ct ed s o m et i m e b et ween

1 9 7 3 an d 1 9 7 5

, h e o ccas i o nal l y v i s i t ed t h e co n s t ru ct i o n s i t e du ri n g a t wo week p eri o d

o f t i m e du ri n g w h i c h d ry wal l was i n s t al l ed wi t h t h e u s e o f an as b es t o s -co n t ai n i n g

j oint c om pound m a nu fact u red by n o n -p art y Geo rg ia-P a c i f ic w hic h c onta ine d a sbe stos

s o l d b y Un i on Carb id e. Th ere was ev i d en ce t h at

, d u ri n g s o m e o f t h o s e v i s i t s

, M r

.

Kn i gh t was n ear ai rb o rn e d us t fro m t h e jo i n t co m

p o u n d

.

2In ad d i t io n t o ev i d en ce o f ex p o s u res t o as b es t os

, t h e Kn i g h t s p ro d u ced ex p ert

o p i n i o n t es t i m o n y i n s u p p o rt o f t h ei r cl ai m t h at M r. Kn i g ht ’ s m es o t h el i o m a was

cau s ed b y h is ex p o s u res t o as b es t o s. Aft er co n si d eri ng t h i s ev i d en ce, t h e ju ry

ren d ered a v erd i ct : (1 ) fi n d i ng t h at M r. Kn i gh t ’ s m es o t h el i o m a was cau s ed i n p art by

Scap a’ s neg li g en ce, i n p art b y Un i o n C arb i de’ s n eg l i g en ce, an d i n p art b y Geo rg i a

Paci fi c’ s n eg l i gen ce; an d (2 ) as s es s i n g (p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 51 -1 2 -3 3 (c)) 40 p ercen t

o f th e fau l t t o Scap a, 40 percen t t o Un i o n Carb i d e, an d 2 0 p ercen t t o Geo rg ia Paci fi c.

Th e j u ry ’ s t o tal co m

p en s at ory d am ag e award was $ 7 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0.0 0 fo r M r. K n i g h t ’ s

p ai n an d s u fferi ng ; $ 50 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 fo r M r. K n i g h t ’ s m ed ical ex p en ses (red u ced b y t h e

t ri al co u rt t o $ 4 6 7 ,6 7 2 .3 7); an d $ 3 ,0 00 ,0 0 0 .0 0 fo r M rs

. Kn i g h t ’ s l o ss o f co n s o rt i u m

.

Th e ju ry award ed $ 7 90 .0 0 i n p u n i t i v e d am ag es ag ai n s t Scap a. Bas ed o n 4 0 p ercen t

fau l t as s es s ed t o Scap a, t he t ri al co u rt en t ered a ju d g m en t ag ai n s t Scap a i n t h e am o u nt

o f $ 4

, 1 8 7 ,0 6 8

. 9 5

.

Scap a co n t en d s t h at t h e ex p ert o p i n i on t es t i m o n y p ro d uced by t he Kn i g h t s to

es t ab l i s h cau s at i o n was u n rel i ab l e u n d er fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7 .1 ; t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt erro n eo u s l y d en i ed i t s m o t i o n in l im in e s eek in g t o ex cl u de t h i s t es t i m o n y ; an d

t h at t h e Kn i g h t s fai led t o p ro v e b y rel i ab le ev id en ce t h at i t cau s ed o r co nt ri b u t ed t o

M r. Kn i gh t ’ s m es o t h el io m a. Acco rd i n g l y

, Scap a co n t en d s t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred by

3d en y i n g i t s m o t i on s fo r a d i rect ed v erd i ct an d ju d g m en t n o t wi t h s t an d i n g t h e v erd i ct

o n t h i s g ro u n d

.

As an es s en t ial el em en t o f t h ei r t o x i c s u b s t an ce t o r t c l ai m ag ai n s t Scap a, t h e

Kn i gh t s were req u i red to p ro v e b o t h g en eral cau s at i o n

, wh et h er t h e s u b s t an ce at i s s u e

“ i s cap ab l e o f cau s i n g a part i cu l ar i n ju ry o r co n d i t i on i n t h e g en eral p op u l at i o n ,” an d

s p eci fi c cau s at i on

, “ wh et h er a s u b st an ce cau sed a p art icu l ar i n d i v id u al ’ s i n ju ry .”

Bu t l er v. Un i o n Ca r b i d

e Co r p

. , 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p. 2 1

, 2 5 (7 1 2 SE2 d 5 37 ) (2 0 11 ). As t o

g en eral cau s at io n

, i t i s u n d i sp u t ed t h at t h e Kn ig h t s p ro d u ced ev i d en ce t h at ex p o s u re

t o an d i n hal at i on o f ai rb o rn e as b es t o s fi b ers i s cap ab l e of cau s in g m e s o t h e l i o m a in

t h e gen er a l p o p u lat i o n

. As t o s p eci fi c cau s at i o n

, i n a cas e wh ere t h e p l ai n t i ff h as

m u lt i p l e ex p o s u res t o a t o x ic s u b s t an ce i n v ol v i n g m u l t i pl e d efen d an t s al l eg ed t o b e

jo i n t t o rt feas o rs

, t h e i s s u e wi t h res p ect t o a part i cu lar d efen d an t is wh et h er ex p o s u re

t o t h e s u b s t an ce i n v o lv in g t hat d efen d an t cau s ed o r co n t ri b u t e d t o t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s

i n ju ry

. Jo h n Cr a ne, In c. v. Jo n es

, 2 7 8 Ga. 74 7 (6 0 4 SE2 d 8 2 2) (2 00 4 ). Th e ju ry fo u n d

t h at t h e n eg l i g en ce of

jo i nt tor tf e a sor s c onc ur

r e d t o cau s e M r. Kn ig h t’ s m es o t h el i o m a,

an d t h at

, as a jo i n t to rt feas o r, Scap a’ s n eg li g en t ex p o s u re o f M r. Kn i g h t t o as b es t o s

co n tri b u t ed t o h is d ev el op m en t o f m es o t h el i o m a.

4Geo rg i a l aw cl earl y co nt em p l at es d i fferi n g d eg re e s o f c u lpa b i l it y am o n g

jo i n t t o rt feas o rs

. W h ere t h e i n ju ry i s t h e res u l t o f t h e co n cu rri n g

n eg l ig en ce o f t w o o r m o re p art i es

, t h ey m ay be su ed jo i n t ly or s ev eral l y

. It is wel l s et t l ed t h at an act i o n m ay b e m ai n t ai n ed ag ai n s t t w o jo i n t t o rt

feas o rs wh o s e n eg l i g en ce co n t ri b u t es t o p ro d u ce an i n ju ry

, ev en t ho u g h

t h e s am e ob l i g at i o n s d o n o t res t u p o n each wi t h res p ect t o t h e p ers o n

i n ju red

. It i s s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt a reco v ery i f t h e n eg l ig en ce o f b o t h be

a co n t ri bu t i n g cau s e, ev en t h o u g h o n e owes t o t h e p ers o n i n ju red a

h i g h er deg ree o f care, an d ev en t h o ug h t h ere b e d i fferi n g deg rees o f

n eg l ig en ce b y

each

.

Id

. at 7 4 8 -7 4 9 (p u n ct u at i o n, ci t at i o n s

, an d em p has i s o m i t t ed ). W h ere t he n eg l i g en ce

o f t wo o r m o re p art i es co n cu rs t o cau se an i n ju ry

, t h ere i s n o req u i rem en t t h at each

i n d i v i d u al t o rt feas o r’ s n eg l i g en t co n d u ct b e a “ su b s t an t i al ” co nt ri bu t i n g fact o r to

co n st i t u t e a pro x i m at e cau s e o f t h e i n ju ry ; rat her, t h e neg l i g en t co n d u c t o f an

i n d i v i d u al t o rt feas o r n eed o n ly b e a “ co n tri b u t i n g cau s e.” Id

. at 7 4 7 -7 5 2

. A l t h o u g h

p ro o f o f cau s at i o n i n a t o x i c s u b s t an ce t o rt cl ai m g en eral ly i n v o l v e s q u es t i on s

reg ar d i n g t h e l ev el o r d os ag e o f t he to x in t o w h i ch t h e pl ai n t i ff was ex p o s ed

, t h e

p l ai n t i ff i s n o t n eces s ari l y req ui red t o p ro d uce ev i d en ce o f ex p o s u re at m eas u red

d o s ag e l ev el s t o es t ab l i sh t h at an ex p o s ure was a co nt ri b u t i ng cau s e o f t h e i n ju r y.

Fo u ch v. Bi ckn el l S

u p p l y Co

. , 3 2 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 6 3

, 8 6 8

- 8 6 9 (7 5 6 SE2 d 68 2 ) (2 0 1 4 );

Fu l mo r e v

. C

S X Tr a ns p

., In c.

, 2 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. 8 8 4

, 8 9 1 -8 9 2 (5 5 7 SE2 d 6 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ),

o v erru l ed o n o t her g ro u n d s

, No r f o l k & W es t er n R

. Co

. v. Ayer

s

, 5 3 8 U. S. 1 3 5

, 1 5 1,

5n .1 1, 15 7 (1 2 3 SCt 1 2 1 0

, 1 5 5 LE2 d 2 61 ) (2 0 03 ). Bu t a p l ai n t i ff can n o t es t ab l i s h t h at

an ex p o s u re was a co n t ri b u t i n g cau s e o f th e i n ju ry b y p ro o f o f “ an y ex p o s u re” t o t h e

t o x i c s ub s t an ce, n o m at t er h o w s m al l

, d e m i n i m is

, o r i n s ig n ifi can t

. F ul mo r e

, 2 5 2 Ga.

Ap p

. at 8 9 2

. Fo r ex am

p l e, in Jo h n C

r a n e

, s u p ra, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ob s erv ed t h at

a “ co n t ri bu t i n g cau se” do es n o t i n cl u de “ a d e m i ni m u s co n tri b u t i o n to t h e i n

ju ry ,” an d

ap p ro v ed a ju ry i n s tru ct i o n o n co n t ri bu t in g cau s e in a t o x i c su b st an ce cl ai m o n t h e

b as i s t h at “ t h e ju ry ch arg e at i s s u e wo u l d no t h av e m i s l ed t h e ju ry i n t o b el iev i n g t h at

i t co u l d award d am ag es fo r a d e m i n im u s ex p o su re t o as bes t o s.” Jo h n Cr a n e, In c.

,

2 7 8 Ga. at 7 5 0

.

Rat h er, in t o x i c t o rt cas es

, p ro of o f cau s at i o n gen eral l y req u i res rel i ab l e

ex p ert t es t i m o n y

wh i ch is b as ed , at t h e l eas t, o n t h e d et erm i n at i o n t hat

t h ere was a r ea s o n a bl e pr o b a b i l i ty t h at t h e n eg l i g en ce cau s ed t h e in ju ry

. Th e t es ti m on y m

u s t s h o w at l ea s t a p r o b ab l e cau s e, as d is t i n g ui s h ed

fro m a m ere p o ss ib l e cau s e.

Fo u ch

, 3 2 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 6 9 (p u n ct uat i o n an d ci t at i o n o m it t ed ); Ro d r i g u es v.

Geo rg i a -Pa ci

f i c Co r p. , 2 9 0 Ga. Ap p . 4 4 2 , 4 4 4 (6 6 1 SE2 d 1 4 1 ) (2 0 0 8 ).

Th e Kn i g ht s s o u g h t t o es t ab l i s h s p eci fi c cau s at i o n wi t h res p ect to M r. K n i g h t ’ s

ex p os u re t o as b es t o s at t h e Scap a p l an t (an d wi t h res p ect t o ex p o s u res i n v o l v in g o t h er

al l eg ed jo i n t t o rt feas o rs ) b y p ro d u ci n g ex p ert op i n i o n t es t i m o n y f r o m J e r o ld

Ab rah am

, M .D., a p at h o l o g is t

, t h at “ an y ex p os u re” M r. Kn i g ht h ad d uri n g h i s l i fe to

6ai rb o rn e as b es t o s was a co n tri b u t i n g cau s e o f hi s d e v e l o p m en t o f m es o t h el i o m a.

Scap a jo i n ed i n a pre-t ri al m o t i o n i n l i m i n e, fi l ed p u rs u an t to fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -9

-

6 7 .1

, s eek i n g t o ex cl u d e t h i s ex p ert o p i n i on b ecau s e i t fai l ed t o m eet rel i ab i l i t y

req u i rem en t s s et fo rt h in t he s t at u t e an d in Da u ber t v. Mer r el l Do w Ph a r ma ceu t i ca l s

,

In c. , 5 0 9 U. S. 5 7 9 (1 1 3 SCt 2 7 8 6, 1 2 5 LE2 d 4 6 9 ) (1 9 9 3 ) an d p ro gen y (as ad o p t ed

i n t h e s t at u te). 1 As s et fo rt h i n Da u b er t

, t ri al ju d g es p erfo rm a “ g at ek eep i ng ” ro l e wi th

res p ect t o ad m i s s i o n o f ex p ert t es t i m o n y t o “ en s u re th at an y an d al l s ci en t i fi c

t e s t i m o n y o r ev i d en ce ad m it t ed i s n o t o nl y rel ev an t

, b u t rel i ab l e.” Id

. at 5 8 9

, 5 9 7 ;

fo rm er OCGA § 2 4-9 -6 7 .1 (b ). Th e p art y s eek in g ad m i s s i o n o f ex p ert t es t i m o n y h as

t h e bu rd en o f es tab l i s hi n g b y a p rep o nd eran ce o f t h e e v i d en ce t h at t h e ex p ert ’ s

o p i n i o n i s s ci en t ifi cal l y rel i ab l e. HNTB Geo r g i a

, In c. v. H

a mi l t o n-Ki n g

, 2 8 7 Ga. 6 4 1,

6 4 6 (6 9 7 SE2 d 7 7 0 ) (2 0 1 0 ); Al l i s o n v. McGh a n Med

. C o r p

. , 1 8 4 F3 d 1 3 0 0

, 1 3 0 6

(1 1 t h Ci r. 1 99 9 ). W h et h er t o ad m i t ex p ert o p i n i o n t es t i m o ny a s r e l i a b l e i s a l eg al

d et erm i n at i o n fo r t h e t ri al ju d g e t h a t wi l l n o t b e d i s tu rb ed ab sen t an ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n

. Ma s o n v. Ho me Dep o t U.S .A., In c.

, 2 83 Ga. 2 7 1

, 2 7 9 ( 65 8 SE2 d 6 0 3 )

(2 0 0 8). Un d er Da u b e r t

, t h e t ri al ju d g e m u s t as ses s wh et h er t h e reas on i n g o r

1 Th e p ro ceed i n g s i n t h i s cas e were co n t ro l l ed b y fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7 .1

. Th e cu rren t st at u t e, OCGA § 2 4-7 -7 0 2, m ak es no s i g n i fi can t ch an g es an d co n t i n u es

t o ap p ly t h e Da u b er t t es t fo r ad m i s s i o n o f ex pert t es t i m o n y i n ci v i l cas es

.

7m et h o do l o gy u n d erl y i n g t h e ex p ert ’ s t es t i m o ny i s s ci en ti fi cal l y v al i d

. Da u b er t

, 5 0 9

U. S. at 5 9 2 -5 9 3

. Th e rel i ab i l it y as s es s m en t g en eral l y in vo l ves co n s i d erat i o n of m an y

fact ors

, wh i ch d o n ot n eces s ari l y o r ex cl u s i v el y ap p ly t o a l l e x p ert s i n ev ery cas e,

i n cl u d i n g wh et h er t h e m et h o d o r t h eo ry u n d erl y i n g t h e t es ti m o ny h as b een t es t ed to

s ee i f it can b e fal s i fi ed ; wh et her th e m et h o d o r t h e o r y h as b een s ub ject ed t o p eer

rev i ew an d p u b l icat i o n ; wh et h er i t h as a k no wn o r p o t en ti al rat e o f erro r; an d wh et h er

i t i s g en eral l y accep t ed i n t h e rel ev an t s ci en t i fi c co m m u n i t y

. Da u b e r t

, 5 0 9 U. S. at

5 9 2 -5 9 4 ; HNTB Geo r

g i a , 2 8 7 Ga. at 6 43 (p u n ct u at i on an d ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

W i t h o u t h o l d i n g a h eari n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed Scap a’ s m o t io n i n l i m i n e

s eek i n g t o ex cl u d e Dr. Ab r a h a m ’s “ a n y ex po s ure” o p in i o n as un rel i ab l e. 2 Th e t ri al

2 U n d er t h e fact s o f th i s c a s e

, I fi n d n o erro r in t h e fai l u re t o h o l d a h eari n g.

Fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7.1 (d ) p ro vi d es t h at “ [u ] p o n m o t i o n o f a p art y

, t h e co u rt ma y

h o l d a p ret ri al h eari n g ” t o det erm ine rel i ab i l i t y u n d er t h e s t at u t e. (em p has i s s u p p l i ed ).

Ev en w h ere t h e reco rd do es n o t i n cl u d e s p eci fi c fi nd i n g s s h o wi n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt

h as carri ed o u t i t s ro l e as “ g at ek eep er” u n d er t h e s t at u t e, g en eral l y a t ri al co u rt wi l l

b e p res um ed t o h av e p erfo rm ed i t s o ffi ci al d ut i es i n acco rd a n c e wi t h t h e l aw. CS X

Tr a ns p

., In c. v. McDo wel l

, 2 9 4 Ga. Ap p . 8 7 1, 8 7 2-8 7 3 (6 70 SE2 d 54 3 ) (2 0 0 8 ). On

t h e p res en t reco rd

, i t ap p ears t h at t h e ex p ert d ep os i t i o n an d r e p o rt

, al o n g wi t h t h e

m o ti o n i n l i m in e an d res p o ns e, p ro v i d ed a s u ffi ci en t b as i s fo r t h e t r i a l c o u rt to

d et erm i n e t h e ex pert ’ s m et h o d o l og y an d m ak e a rel i ab i l i t y det erm in at i o n u n d er

O CGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7 .1 an d Da u b er t

. M o reo v er, in sat i sfy i n g Da ub er t ’s gat ek eep i n g

req u i rem en t

, t h e t ri al co urt h as “ t h e s am e k in d o f l at i t u d e i n d eci di n g ho w t o t es t an

ex p ert ’ s rel iab i l i t y

, an d t o d eci d e wh e t h e r o r w h en s p eci al b ri efi ng o r o t h er

p ro ceed in g s are need ed to i n v es t i g at e rel i ab i l i t y

, as i t en jo y s wh en i t d eci d es wh et h er

t h at ex p ert ’ s rel ev an t t es t im o n y i s rel i ab l e.” Ku mh o Ti r e Co

. v. Ca r mi ch ael

, 5 2 6 U.

8co u rt ad m i t t ed ex p ert o pi n i o n t e s t i m o n y at t ri al fro m Dr. Ab rah am i n s u p p o rt o f

s p eci fi c cau s at i on t h at

, t o a reas o nab l e d eg ree of m ed ical cert ai n ty

, M r. Kn i g h t ’s

m es o t h el i o m a was cau s ed b y h i s ex po s u re t o ai rb orn e as b es t o s at th e Scap a p l an t

. In

s u p p ort of h i s o p i n i on

, Dr. Ab rah am t es t i fi ed th at m al i g n an t m es o t h el io m a i s a

d i s eas e cau s ed b y i n h al at i o n o f ai rb o rn e as b es t o s f i b e rs ; t h at t h e d i s eas e i s d o s eres p o n s i v e, i n o t h er wo rd s “ i t occu rs m o re l i k el y an d m o re freq u en t l y i n p eo p l e t h at

h av e m ore ex p o su re”; t h at i t m ay o ccu r d ecad es aft er ex p o s u re; an d t h at t h e d i s eas e

i s ex t rem el y rare i n t h e g en eral p o p ul at i on

, des p i t e t h e fact t h at t h e g en eral p o p u l at i o n

i s co ns t an t l y ex po s ed to as b es t o s i n t h e ai r at l o w b ack g ro u n d or am b i en t l e v e l s

.

W h en as k ed wh i ch as b es t o s ex p o s ures cau s ed o r co n t ri b u t ed t o M r. K n i g h t ’ s

m es o t h el i o m a, Dr. Ab rah am t es t i fi ed t h at al l o f h i s i n d i vi d ual ex po s ures o ver a p eri o d

o f t im e

– h i s cu m

u l at i v e ex p o su re

– cau s ed h i s m es o t h el i o m a. Dr. Ab rah am ex p l ai n ed

t h e m et h o d o l o g y u n d erl y i n g h i s o p i n i o n i n an s wers t o vari o u s q u es t i o n s ab o ut

cau s at i o n , as fo l l o ws :

Q: If y o u h av e so m eo n e wh o h as a r e c o gn i zed h is to ry o f ex p o s u re t o

as b es t o s an d t h ey h av e a co n fi rm ed d i ag no s is o f m es ot hel i o m a, wh at

d o es t hat m ean t o y o u?

S. 1 37 , 1 5 2 (1 1 9 SCt 1 1 6 7 , 1 4 3 LE2 d 2 3 8 ) (1 9 99 ).

9A : Th at ’ s en o u g h t o p u t o n e an d o n e t o g et her

. . . Mo s t o f t h e w o rl d’ s

e p i d e m i o l o gy th at has s h o wn th e d o s e-res po n s e rel at io n s hi p an d th e

cau s al rel at i on sh i p . . . i s b as ed o n t h at , o n t h e h i s t o ry o f ex p os u re. . . .

Q: In s om eo n e wi t h m es o t h el i o m a an d d o cu m en ted as b es t o s ex p os u re,

wh i ch o f t h o se as bes to s ex p o s ures o v er t hei r l i fe cau s e t h at d i s eas e?

A: It ’ s i m

p o s s i bl e t o s o r t t h em o u t

. Th at ’ s wh y t h e i nd ex is cal led

cu m u lat i v e ex p o s u re, t h e t o t al i t y o f t h ei r ex p o s u re. . . .

Q. W h at d o es th at m ean ?

A: [T] h e cu m

u l at i ve ex p o s u re i s wh at rel at es t o t h ei r ri s k fo r d ev el o p i n g

t h e d i s eas e

. . . t h e s u m o f al l th e i n d i v i d ual ex po s ures

. . . As th e

ex p o s u re g o es u p

, t h e ri s k g o es u p

. Th at wo u l d b e wh at ’ s co n s id ered a

p o s i t i v e d o s e-res p o n s e rel at i o n s h i p

. Th e g reat er t h e ex po s ure, th e

g reat er th e ri s k

. . . A n d t h i s c an o n l y b e m eas ured i n a p o pu l at i o n

b ecau s e i n t h e i nd i v i d u al t h at g et s t h e di s eas e, t hei r ri s k i s a h u n dred

p ercen t

. . . .

Q: Kn owi ng that [M r. Kn i g h t ] h as an as b es t os -rel at ed m es o th el i o m a, h i s

ri sk i s a h u n d red p ercen t , i s wh at y o u ju s t s ai d ?

A: He’ s g o t i t so t h ere’ s n o m eas u re ex cep t fo r ri s k

, h e’ s g o t t h e di s eas e.

. . .

Q: [A] re each of th e ex po s u res t h at h e’ s d es cri bed i n th i s c a s e

, i f yo u

ad d t h em al l t o g et h er, y ou ad d u p t o t h at h u n dred p ercen t ?

A: Yo u ad d u p t o hi s cu m u l at i v e ex p o s u re. At p res en t t h ere’ s n o way t o

s o rt o u t h o w m

uch o n e o r t he o t h er c o n t ri b u t ed b u t fo r each of t h o s e

i n d i vi d u al ex p o s ure s [

, ] s i n ce t h ere i s n o s afe k n own t h res h o l d fo r

ex p o s u re fo r m es o th el i o m a

. . . if he’ d o n l y h ad an y o n e of t h o s e

ex p o s u res i n t h a t h y

p ot h et ical

. . . an d dev el o p ed m es o t h el i o m a, t hat

wo u ld h av e b een en o u g h t o cau s e i t

.

10Bas ed o n t h i s m et h od o l o g y

, Dr. Ab rah am ex p res s ed h i s o p i n io n

, t h at t o a reas o n ab l e

d eg ree o f m ed i cal cert ai nt y

, an y an d ev ery ex p o s u re t o as b es t o s t h a t M r

. Kn i g ht

e x p e r i e n ced at t h e Scap a p l an t was a co nt ri b u t i ng cau s e o f h i s m es o t h el i o m a. D r

.

Ab rah am ’ s o p i n i o n was t h at

, s i n c e M r

. Kn i gh t ’ s ex p os u re t o as b es t o s at t h e Scap a

p l an t wa s m o r e t h a n zero

, t h at ex p o su re was a co n t ri bu t in g cau se o f h i s

m es o t h el i o m a. 3

In Bu t l er

, 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1

, we co n cl u d ed t h at t h e t ri al co u rt p ro p erl y ex erci s ed

i t s d i s cret i o n t o ex cl u d e as u n rel i ab l e ex p e rt op i n i o n t es t i m o ny fro m a p at h o l o g i s t

u s i n g t h e s am e “ an y ex p o s u re” m et h o do l og y to p ro v e, o n t h e i s s ue o f s p eci fi c

cau s at i o n

, t h at t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s ex p o s u re t o t h e d efen d an t ’ s as bes t o s -co n t a ining pr oduct

w a s a co n t ri b ut in g cau s e o f t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s m es ot h el i o m a. In t h at cas e, t h e

m et h o do l o gy un derl y i n g t h e ex p ert ’ s “ an y ex p o su re” o p i n i on (al s o kn o wn as t h e “ n o

t h res ho l d ’ o r “ l i n ear n o n -t h res h o l d ” m o d el s fo r cau sat i o n ) w as r e j e c t e d as n ot

t es t ab l e, s ci en t i fi cal l y u n r el iab l e, an d n o t t h e p ro d u ct o f rel i ab l e p ri n ci p l es an d

m et h o ds un d er OCGA § 2 4 -9 -6 7 .1 (b ) (2 ). Bu t l er

, 3 10 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 4, 27

, 3 8

, 4 0 -4 1,

3 Scap a’ s co n ten t i o n t h at Dr. Ab rah am ’ s ex p ert t es t i m o ny o n s peci fi c cau s at i o n

was un rel i ab le was pres erv ed fo r ap p el l at e rev i ew b y t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f

Scap a’ s m o t io n i n l i m i n e. Ha r ley-Da vi d s on Mo t or Co

. v. Da n i el

, 2 4 4 Ga. 28 4

, 2 8 5

-

2 8 6 (2 60 SE2 d 2 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

114 3 -4 4, 4 7

. A s an ap p en d ix

, Bu t l er at t ach ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et ai l ed o rd er co n s i d eri n g

t h e m et h o d o lo g y u n d erl y i n g t h e p at h ologist’ s opin i o n t h at “ an y ex p o s ure” t o as b es t o s

cau s ed t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s m es o th el i o m a. Th e t ri al co u rt n o ted t h e l o g i cal i n co n s i s t en cy

o f a m et h o d o l og y t h at p res u m es t h ere i s n o t hres h o ld ex p o s u re l ev el n eces s ary fo r

as b es t o s t o cau s e m es o t h el i o m a, wh i l e adm itting tha t vir t u al l y ev ery o ne i n t h e g en eral

p o p u l at i o n h as i nh al ed s o m e as b es t o s fi b ers an d t h e d i s eas e rem ai n s ex t rem el y rare.

Id

. at 4 0 -4 1

. Ci ti n g t o t h e Referen ce M an u al o n Sci en t i f i c E v i d en ce, 3 3 (Fed eral

J u d i ci al Cen t er, 2 d ed

, 2 0 00 ) t h e t ri al co u rt p o i n t ed o u t t h at t h e “ an y ex p o s u re”

m et h o do l o g y’ s rel i an ce o n ex p o s u re s t an d ard s pro m u l gat ed b y reg u l at o ry ag en ci es

d em o n s t rat es a ri s k as s es s m e n t a n al y s i s rat h er t h an a rel i ab l e co n cl u s i o n o n “ t h e

l i kel i h o o d th at a ca u s a l r el a t i o n s h i p i n a s p eci f i c ca s e i s m o re l i k el y th an n ot .” Id

. at

4 1 -4 2.

Ot h er co u rt s h av e ex am in ed t h e m et h o d o lo g y u n d erl y i ng t h e “ an y

ex p o s u re”

o p i n i o n o n s p eci fi c cau s at i o n an d al s o reject ed i t as sci en t i fi cal l y u n rel i ab l e. In Bet z

v. Pn eu mo Ab ex LLC

, 6 15 Pa. 5 0 4

, 5 0 8 -5 0 9

, 5 3 9

, 5 4 9 -5 5 4 ( 4 4 A3 d 2 7 ) (2 0 1 2 ) t h e

Pen ns y lv an i a Su p rem e Co u rt reject ed ad m is s i b i l i t y o f “ an y ex p o s u re” ex p ert o p i n i o n

t es t i m o ny to p ro v e t h at ev ery ex p o s u re t o as b es t o s

, n o m at t er h o w s m al l

, co n t ri b u t es

t o cau s e as b es t o s -rel at ed d i s eas e. Bet z co n cl ud ed t h at t h e “ an y ex p o s u re” o p i n i o n

12was p ro p erl y v i ewed as an ex p res s i o n o f ri s k as s es s m en t rat h er t h an cau s at i o n , an d

t h at i t su ffered fro m an i rreco n ci l ab l e co n f l i c t

– o n e can n ot m ai nt ai n t h at a d e

m i n i m i s ex p os ure i s cau s at i v e wh i l e al s o co n ced in g th at a di s eas e i s d o se-res p o n s i ve.

Id

. at 5 4 8-5 50

. W h i l e ap p reci at i n g t h e d i ffi cu lt i es o f es t ab l i s hi ng cau s at i o n

, t h e

Co u rt i n Bet

z fo u nd i t was n o t a vi ab l e so l u t i on t o i n d u lg e i n a fi ct i o n t h at ev ery

ex p os u re t o as b es t o s , n o m at ter h o w m i n i m al i n rel at i o n t o o t her ex po s u res , creat es

a fact u al i s s u e a s t o s p eci fi c cau s at i o n

. Id

. at 55 1 Th e Co urt co n cl u d ed t h at

, to

s an ct i o n t h e “ an y ex p o s u re” o p i n i o n as rel iab l e p ro o f of s p eci fi c cau sat i on wo u ld

“ s u b ject d efen d an ts t o fu l l jo in t -an d -s ev eral l i ab i l i t y fo r in ju ri es an d fat al i t i es i n t h e

ab s en ce of an y reas o n ab l y d ev el o p ed s ci en t i fi c reas o n i n g t h at wo u l d s u pp o rt t h e

co n cl u s i o n t h at t h e p ro d u ct s o l d b y th e d efen d an t was a s u b s tan t i al fact o r i n cau s i n g

t h e h arm .” Id

. Si m il arl y

, i n Na t

. Ba n k o f Co m mer ce v. As so c. Mi l k Pr o d ucer s

, In c.

,

1 9 1 F3 d 8 5 8 (8 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 9 ), t h e Co u rt fo u n d t h at th e m et h o d o l o g y u n d erl y i n g t h e

“ an y ex p o s u re” o p i n i o n

– t hat th e ri s k o f d i s eas e fro m ev en t h e s m al l es t ex p os u re “ i s

n o t zero ”

– “ fal l s wo efu l l y sh o rt o f t h e d eg ree o f p ro o f req u i red b y Da u b er t an d i t s

p ro g en y ,” an d “ d o es n ot p ro v i d e a s ci en t i fi c bas i s fo r a ju ry to fi nd th at i t was m o re

l i kel y t han n o t t hat [a p l ai nt i ff’ s ] can cer was cau s ed b y [a defen d an t ’ s p ro d u ct ] .” Id

.

at 8 6 0 -8 6 1 (p u n ct u at io n an d ci tat i o n o m i t t ed ). In W hi t i n g v. B o s t o n E

d i s o n Co

. , 8 9 1

13FSu pp 1 2 (D. M as s

. 1 9 9 5 ), t h e Co u rt ap pl i ed Da u b er t t o c o n s i d e r t h e rel i ab i l i t y o f

t h e s am e s p eci fi c cau sat io n m et h o d o l o g y t rav el i n g un d er t h e n am e “ l i n ear n o n

t h res ho l d m o del .” Id

. at 2 3

. Acco rd i ng t o W h i t i n g , “ [i ] n l ay m an ’ s t erm s , t h e m o d el

a s s u m e s t h at i f a l o t o f s om et h i n g i s b ad fo r y ou

, a l it t le o f t h e s am e t h i ng

, w h i l e

p erh ap s n o t eq u al ly b ad

, m u s t be s o i n s o m e d eg ree. T h e m o d el reject s t h e i d ea t h at

t h ere m ig h t b e a t h r e s h o l d at wh i ch t h e n eu t ral o r b en i g n effect s o f a su b s t an ce

b eco m e t o x i c.” Id

. W

h i t in g reject ed t h i s m et ho d o l o g y o n th e b as i s t h at i t “ can n o t b e

fal s ifi ed

, n o r can i t b e v al i d at ed

. . . an d i t “ h as n o k no wn o r p ot en t i al rat e of erro r.”

Id

. at 2 5 ; acco rd Hen r i cks en v. Co n o co Ph i l l i p s Co

. , 6 0 5 FSu p p2 d 1 14 2

, 1 1 6 6 (E.D.

W as h

. 2 0 0 9 ) (l i n ear n o n -t h res h o l d m o del i s ap p ro pri at e fo r p red i ct i n g ri sk s o f lo wl ev el ex p o s u re, b u t n o t s ci en t i fi cal l y rel i ab l e t o det erm i n e s p e ci fi c cau s at i o n );

Da vi d s o n v. Ga

. Pa ci

fi c LLC

, 2 0 14 W L 3 5 1 0 2 6 8 at * 5 (W .D. La. 2 0 1 4) (“ ev ery

ex p os u re” t h eo ry reject ed u nd er Da u b er t as un rel i ab l e t o es t ab l i s h s peci fi c cau s at i o n

i n a m es o t h el i o m a cas e b ecau s e i t was “ n o t t es t ab l e, an d co n seq u en tl y can n o t h av e

an erro r rat e.”); An d

er s on v. Fo r d Mo t o r Co

, 9 50 FSu p p2 d 1 2 17

, 1 22 4 -1 22 5 (D. Ut ah

2 0 1 3 ) (“ ev ery ex p o s u re” o p i n i o n ex cl u d ed u n d er Da u b er t as no t tes t ab l e an d h av i n g

n o k n o wn erro r rat e); Kr i k v. Cr a n e Co

. , 2 0 1 4 W L 7 33 0 9 0 1 at * 4 -5 n.6 ( N

. D

. Il l

.

142 0 1 4 ) (s am e an d co l l ect i n g ci t at i o n s sh o wi n g t h at “ [n ] u m ero us o t h er co u rt s h av e al s o

b arred ‘ an y

ex p os u re’ o p i n i o ns i n as b es t o s an d t o x i c t o rt act i o n s .”).

F o r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i n Bu t l er

, 3 1 0 Ga. ap p

. 21

, an d n u m ero u s o t h e r

au t h o ri t ies

, as d i s cu s s ed ab ov e, I fi n d a g ro wi n g co n sen s u s t h at

, as a m at t er o f l aw,

Dr. Ab rah am ’ s “ an y ex p os u re”o p i n i o n o n s p eci fi c cau s at i o n was bas ed o n u n rel i ab l e

m et h o do l o gy

, fai l ed t h e Da u b er t s t an d ard fo r rel i ab le ex p ert t es t i m o ny

, an d was n ot

“ t h e p ro d u ct o f rel iab l e p ri n ci p les an d m et h o d s” as req u i red b y fo rm er OCGA § 2 4 -9

-

6 7 .1 (b ) (2 ). Acco rd i n g ly

, I co n cl ud e t h at th e t ri al co u rt ab u s ed i t s di s cret i o n an d

erred by d en y i n g Scap a’ s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e to ex cl u de t hi s t es t i m o n y

, an d by

ad m i t t i ng t h is t es t i m o n y at t ri al t o p ro v e s peci fi c cau s at i o n as t o Scap a.

In t h e ab s en ce o f t h e erro n eo us l y ad m it t ed s p eci fi c cau s at io n t es ti m o n y fro m

Dr. A b rah am

, t h e Kn i g ht s fai l ed t o p ro d u ce an y ad m i s si b l e ev i d en ce pro v i n g an

es s en t i al el em en t of th ei r cas e

– t h at M r. Kn ig h t’ s ex p o s u re t o as b es t o s at t h e Scap a

p l an t was a co nt ri b ut i n g c a u s e o f h i s m es o t hel i om a. M o reo v er, it i s cl ear fro m Dr.

Ab rah am ’ s t es t i m o n y th at h i s “ an y ex p os u re” m et h o d o l o g y

fo rm ed t h e b as i s fo r al l

o f h i s ex p ert o p i n i o n s o n s p eci fi c cau s at i o n

, i n cl u d in g t es t i m o n y t h at M r. K n i g h t ’ s

ex p os u re s t o a s b es t o s at th e Scap a p l an t were, as th e m ajo ri t y o p i n i on p o i n t s o u t

,

“ s u b s t an t i al cau s es ” o f Kn i gh t ’ s m es o t hel i o m a. Un der Dr. Ab rah am ’ s m et h o d o l o g y

,

15an y ex p o s u re t o as b es t os

, n o m at t er ho w s m al l

, can b e ch aract eri zed as a “ s u b s t an t i al

cau s e” b ecau s e, i n h i s o pi ni o n

, al l ex p o su res co nt ri b u t e t o cau se m es o th el i o m a, an d

“ [a] t p res en t t h ere’ s n o w ay to s o rt o u t h o w m uch o n e o r t h e o t h er co n tri b u t ed

. . .”

Th ere was n o ev i d en ce at tri al es t ab l i s h i n g an y m eas u red l ev el or d o s ag e o f ai rb o rn e

as b es t o s t o w h i c h Mr. Kn ig ht was ex p os ed at t he Scap a p l an t or fro m an y o t h er

s o u rce t o wh i ch h e was ex p o sed

. Un d er t h e ev i d en ce, Dr. Ab rah am ’ s cau s at i o n

t es t i m o ny b as ed o n t h e “ an y ex p o s u re” m et h od o lo g y erro n eo u s ly i nv i ted t h e ju ry to

fi nd t h a t a n y l ev el o f ex po s u re (ev en d e m i n im is ) was s uffi ci en t t o co ns t i t u t e a

co n tri b u t i n g cau s e o f Kn i g h t ’ s m es o t hel i o m a, an d was cl earl y a s i g n i fi can t fact o r in

co n vi n ci n g t h e ju ry t o ap p o rt i o n 4 0 p ercen t l i ab i l i t y fo r ex po s ures at t h e Scap a p l an t

.

See Jo h ns o n v. Kn eb el

, 2 6 7 Ga. 8 5 3 , 8 5 9 (4 85 SE2 d 4 51 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (rev ers al req u i red

b ecau s e ex p ert o p in i o n was erro n eo u s l y ad m i tt ed t h at “ w en t t o t h e h eart of t h e ju ry ’ s

ap p ort i o n i n g o f l i ab i l i t y ” an d “ li k el y was a s i g n i fi can t fact o r i n t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct .”).

Fo r t h es e reas o n s

, t h e ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f t h e Kn ig h t s ag ai n s t Scap a s h o u ld

b e rev ers ed

. It fo l lo ws t hat t h e t ri al co urt erred b y d en y i n g Scap a’ s p o st -v erd i ct

m o ti o n o n t h es e g ro u n d s fo r ju d g m en t n o t w i t hs t an di n g t h e v erd i ct (o r al t ern at i v el y

fo r a new t ri al ). OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 0

. W h ere an ap p el lat e co u rt d et erm i n es t h at a m o t i o n

fo r ju d g m en t n o twi th s tan d i n g t h e v erd ict was erro n eo us l y d en ied an d rev ers es t h e

16ju d g m en t

, OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 0 (d ) p ro v i d es t h at “ no t h i n g i n t h i s Co de s ect io n p recl u d es

i t f r o m d et erm i n i ng t h at t h e ap p el l ee i s en t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al o r fro m d i rec t i n g t h e

t ri al co u rt t o d et erm i n e wh et h er a n ew t ri al s h ou l d b e g ran t ed .” On t he p res en t fact s

,

I wo u l d fi n d t h at t h e Kn i g h t s are en ti t l ed t o a n ew t ri al

. At t ri al , t h e Kn i g h t s rel i ed

o n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s erro n eo us ru l i n g t h at t h e ex p ert cau s at io n ev i d en c e e s s en t i al to

t h ei r cas e was rel iab l e an d ad m i s s i b l e. A l t h o u g h t h e Kn i g h t s h ad n ot i ce in t h e t ri al

co u rt th at Scap a was ch al l en g in g t h e rel i ab i l i t y o f cau s at i o n t es t i m o n y b as ed o n t h e

“ an y ex p o s u re” m et h o d ol o g y

, at t h e ti m e, n o ap p el l at e d eci s io n in G eo rg i a h ad

ad d res s ed th e rel i ab i l i ty o f t hi s t es t i m o n y

. Th e d eci s i o n i n B u tl er

, s up ra, o n t h i s i s s u e

was n o t ren d ered u n t i l aft er fi n al ju dg m en t i n t h e t ri al co u rt

. Gi ven t h e ev i d en ce in

t h e reco rd

, I wo ul d co n cl u d e t h at t h i s i s n o t a cas e wh ere a ru l i n g o n ap p eal ex cl u d i n g

t h e e x p ert cau s at i o n t es t i m o n y b as ed o n t h e “ an y ex p o su re” m et ho d o l o gy

co n cl u s i v el y es t ab l is h es t h at t h e Kn i g h t s wo u l d no t b e ab l e t o p ro d u ce su ffi ci en t

rel i ab l e ev i d en ce of s p eci fi c cau s at i o n

. Un d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

, I wo u l d rem an d t h e

cas e fo r a n ew t ri al t o g i v e t h e K n i g ht s an o p p o rt u n i t y to p ro du ce rel iab l e ex p ert

t es t i m o ny t o pro ve sp eci fi c cau s at i o n

, s ub ject

, o f co urs e, to Scap a’ s p re-t ri al ri g h t to

ch al l en g e t h e rel i ab i li t y o f an y ex p ert t es t i m on y , an d t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ex erci s e o f i t s

“ g at ek eep i n g ” fu n ct i o n u n der OCGA § 2 4 -7 -7 02 an d Da u b er t

17I am au t h o ri zed t o s t at e t h at J u d g e Bran ch jo i n s i n t h i s d i s s en t

.

18