Source: http://www.ettdefenseinsight.com/category/substantial-factor/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:06:33+00:00

Document:
Asbestos defendants notched a victory when the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the “cumulative exposure” asbestos causation theory. This theory, also known by several other names (including the “each and every fiber theory”), postulates that each exposure or asbestos fiber above background asbestos exposure is a substantial factor in causing disease. This case brings Ohio in line with several federal and state courts in rejecting this plaintiffs’ theory.
In Schwartz v. Honeywell International, Inc., decedent’s father was exposed to asbestos both in the course of his employment as an electrician and while installing Bendix brakes on family cars five to ten times. Plaintiff alleges that it was decedent’s contact with her father’s asbestos-laden clothing that caused decedent’s mesothelioma and subsequent death.
At trial, plaintiffs’ pathology expert, Dr. Carlos Bedrossian, testified 1) that there is no known threshold at which mesothelioma “will not occur” and 2) decedent’s take home exposure both from her father’s occupational exposure and his work with brakes contributed to her “total cumulative dose.” It was her cumulative exposure, the expert opined, that caused her mesothelioma. Honeywell International Inc. (the successor-in-interest to Bendix) moved for a directed verdict twice “arguing that Schwartz had failed to demonstrate that [decedent’s] exposure to asbestos from Bendix brakes was a substantial factor in causing her disease,” but both motions were denied. Instead, the jury found defendant Honeywell 5% liable for decedent’s injuries and awarded plaintiff just over $1 million.
On appeal, defendant argued that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence that decedent’s exposure to Bendix brakes was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. The appeals court disagreed, found the expert’s testimony to be “based on reliable scientific evidence,” and affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motions.
Next, the court determined that exposure to asbestos from Bendix brakes was not a substantial factor in causing decedent’s mesothelioma because plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof. Notably, decedent’s father worked on Bendix brakes only 5 to 10 times while decedent lived at home, compared with occupational exposure over 33 years. The court concluded that “[t]hese regular exposures that [decedent] received as a result of her father’s years of working as an electrician with products containing asbestos contrasts strongly with the limited and irregular exposures that [decedent] might have had a result of her father’s occasional brake jobs.” Further, plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the manner, proximity, frequency, and length of decedent’s exposure.
The Schwartz decision is a victory for defendants by rejecting the cumulative exposure theory as insufficient. This brings Ohio in line with several other jurisdictions, including the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, Georgia, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Notably, California state courts have allowed similar “every exposure” theories to go before the jury (see here and here). As plaintiffs suffer setbacks while attempting to advance this theory, they will transform this into other theories that defendants must be ready to tackle.
A California appellate court has sided with the defendants in an alleged take-home asbestos exposure case. Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (July 5, 2017, B245027) —Cal.App.5th—presents many strong arguments for defendants, including what is required to show that an asbestos product was a substantial factor in causing asbestos disease.
Plaintiffs Joseph and Marline Petitpas alleged that Joseph Petitpas’ work at a gas station owned by Exxon and at various construction sites brought home asbestos which injured Ms. Petitpas.
To meet their burden in an asbestos case, plaintiffs must show that there is exposure to a defendant’s product that was “in reasonable medical probability” a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 982.) Many factors are considered to determine if the exposures are substantial factors, including frequency, proximity and duration of the exposures. The evidence in this case merely suggested it was possible that Mr. Petitpas brought asbestos dust home on his clothing from his inspection of construction jobs. He only did this for an hour a day and returned to his office for the remainder. Neither Plaintiff testified that Ms. Petitpas shook out his clothes when washing them. Further, it was merely possible she was exposed when visiting the construction sites, because there was no active construction occurring and there was no visible dust. Mere presence of asbestos at a site was simply not sufficient to show that asbestos-containing products used at these sites was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Petitpas’ mesothelioma.
Ford submitted a jury instruction which stated that it was not liable for exposure to replacement brakes, clutches and gaskets on Ford vehiclesthat were manufactured by parties other than Ford. This instruction was based upon O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335. The O’Neil decision established that a product manufacturer cannot be held liable in strict liability or negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product “unless the defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm, or the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products.” Plaintiffs objected that O’Neil only applied to failure to warn cases, and that Ford’s design was defective because “it is a Ford design that called for the installation and inclusion of asbestos-containing brake products, whether or not they were made by Ford or anyone else.” The court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument because they did not present any evidence that the Ford cars were unable to use non-asbestos parts or were somehow incompatible with non-asbestos parts.
Plaintiffs also argued that the trial court committed error by allowing jury instructions CACI Nos. 430 and 435 to be read to the jury. Both of these instructions give the jury direction on what a “substantial factor” is under California law. CACI No. 430, the generally applicable instruction, defines “substantial factor” as a factor that “contributed to the harm.” This Use Notes for this instruction state that it should not be read in asbestos related cancer cases. However, Exxon argued that CACI No. 430 was applicable to it because it was a premises liability defendant, not a product manufacturer or supplier. CACI No. 435 is the instruction for asbestos cancer cases.
CACI No. 435, applicable in asbestos cases only, defines “substantial factor” as one that “contributed to the risk,” not just the harm. Plaintiffs argued that using CACI No. 430 confused the jury and imposed a greater burden on them.
The jury found that Exxon did not know, and should not have reasonably known, that Mr. Petitpas’ work at the gas station put Ms. Petitpas at unreasonable risk.
Plaintiffs argued that because the management at Exxon refineries knew about the hazards of asbestos, their agents at service stations also knew. The court did not agree with this argument. Since the jury only heard evidence that conditions at other locations posed a risk to other classes of employees (which Exxon knew about), the jury properly found that Exxon did not know about the risks at its service stations.
The Petitpas court went so far as to suggest that had the jury found otherwise, it would have to be reversed. Dr. Castleman admitted that there were no studies “of any statistical power…that speak of the mesothelioma risk of mechanics that do brake repair work” and that no such studies exist today. Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Horn also conceded this fact. Therefore, the court reasoned, “There was no evidence linking asbestos exposure to occasional bystanders who were near automotive workers as they did brake work.” The court’s conclusion in Petitpas can and should be used as an argument in all brake take-home repair cases.
This decision bodes well for defendants challenging plaintiffs’ often broad and sweeping allegations in asbestos cases.
Courts from around the country have rejected efforts by plaintiff experts to testify that every asbestos exposure is a substantial factor in causing disease. On March 3, 2016, California’s second appellate district went the other way, and held in Davis v. Honeywell International, Inc. that the controversial “every exposure counts” theory is admissible under governing expert witness law. Thus, although trial courts are supposed to play a “gatekeeper” role in keeping out unreliable expert evidence (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747), Davis breaks the gate wide open in allowing a jury, not the trial court in its “gatekeeper” role, to decide whether to accept the theory.
Davis was a wrongful death case. Sam Davis worked as an auto mechanic and home remodeler from approximately 1963 to 1979. He performed “one or two” brake jobs per day, and always used Bendix brake linings (for which defendant Honeywell was responsible). These linings contained 50 percent chrysotile asbestos by weight. He was also allegedly exposed to asbestos as a result of his home remodel work.
Prior to trial, Honeywell filed a motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from presenting expert opinion testimony that every exposure to asbestos above background contributed to decedent’s disease. The motion was denied, and plaintiff’s pathologist (James A. Strauchen, M.D.) and pulmonologist (William Rom, M.D.) were permitted to testify and advance the theory. Ultimately, the jury found for plaintiffs, and Honeywell appealed.
Honeywell’s primary basis for appeal was that the “every exposure counts” testimony of Dr. Strauchen should have been excluded. Honeywell advanced four arguments: (1) the testimony was speculative and illogical; (2) the regulatory standards Strauchen relied upon cannot establish causation; (3) no appropriate scientific literature supports the theory; and (4) the theory is contrary to California causation law espoused in Rutherford v. Owens Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, which held that not every exposure to asbestos is a “substantial factor” in causing disease.
The decision is not yet final. It is still subject to a petition for rehearing, which could result in a change in the opinion, and to either or both a request for depublication and a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, either of which if granted would make this decision uncitable in California courts, though not necessarily elsewhere.
The Washington Court of Appeals recently published a product liability opinion that clarifies how a court should decide whether a product-seller defendant is subject to Washington’s common law or the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA). Which law applies is significant for product sellers because they are subject to strict liability under Washington’s common law, but are generally immune from liability under the WPLA absent limited exceptions. In Fagg v. Bartells Asbestos Settlement Trust (Dec. 8, 2014), the court held that in cases involving a plaintiff’s exposure to injury-causing products both before and after the WPLA’s effective date of July 26, 1981, a defendant-specific exposure analysis is proper to determine which law applies to a particular defendant. The court concluded that unless substantially all of the plaintiff’s exposure to a particular defendant’s product occurred before July 26, 1981, the WPLA, and its general immunization for product-seller defendants, applies.
In Fagg, the plaintiff alleged injurious-exposure to various asbestos-containing products manufactured and sold by separate defendants from the 1950s to the 1990s. The plaintiff also claimed he was exposed to asbestos while enlisted in the Navy in the 1960s, and from living and vacationing near the Libby, Montana superfund site from the early 1980s to 2007. The Court of Appeals considered how to determine whether WPLA applies to a plaintiff alleging prolonged exposure to injury-causing products – should a court aggregate a plaintiff’s exposure to all injury-causing products regardless of source, or should the court evaluate a plaintiff’s exposure on a defendant-specific basis. Prior to the Fagg opinion, Washington law was undecided on this issue.
The Fagg court held that a defendant-specific exposure analysis is the proper measure to determine if the WPLA applies to a plaintiff’s claim. To determine if the WPLA applies to a plaintiff’s claims against a particular defendant, a court must look at the plaintiff’s allegations of injurious-exposure to only that defendant’s product.
Underlying the Fagg court’s holding was the Washington Supreme Court decisions in Simonetta v. Viad Corp., Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, and Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., which concluded that injuries from products outside a defendant’s “chain of distribution” are not actionable. Accordingly, the Fagg court held that in determining what law applies to a plaintiff’s claim against a particular defendant – common law or the WPLA – a court must examine the plaintiff’s alleged injurious-exposure to only that defendant’s product.
In reaching its holding, the Fagg court affirmed the calculus used to decide if the WPLA applies to claims against a particular defendant: “the WPLA applies unless ‘substantially all’ of the exposure occurred before” the WPLA’s effective date, July 26, 1981. Thus, to bring a common law claim, an asbestos-plaintiff must show that substantially all of his injury-causing exposure to that defendant’s product occurred before 1981.
The Fagg court’s holding is significant for product sellers because of the different liability standards under the common law and the WPLA for product sellers. If the Fagg court had concluded that an aggregate-exposure analysis should be used to determine whether the WPLA applied, this could impose the common law (and thus strict liability) on a product seller if substantially all of a plaintiff’s aggregate asbestos exposure occurred before 1981, even though the plaintiff’s exposure to the particular seller’s product occurred only after 1981. This would thwart the Legislature’s intent when it enacted the WPLA to insulate product sellers from liability. Instead, the Fagg court’s holding ensures that a product seller is held to the proper liability standard – common law or WPLA – based upon when a plaintiff was allegedly exposed to the specific seller’s product.
The Fagg court also discussed the meaning of “substantially all.” The court noted with approval cases and Washington law that define substantially all as “‘nearly all,’” all except “‘a negligible minority’ or when a ‘practically negligible’ amount remains,” and “‘essentially all.’” The Fagg court also cited positively cases which have quantified “substantially all” to mean “85 percent or more.” Although the court declined to adopt a definition of “substantially all,” practitioners, and particularly product-seller defendants, should be able to use the Fagg court’s language and cited cases to better argue that the protections afforded by the WPLA apply to a given case.
Substantial factor? I know it when I see it.
Many of us have struggled for quite some time in reaching a consensus on what level of exposure does, and does not, constitute a “substantial factor” when assessing causation of an asbestos-related disease. In a recent order on a motion for summary judgment, Judge Eduardo Robreno of the asbestos MDL, applying maritime law, weighed in on the issue. His decision gives additional guidance, if it does not end the discussion.
Although there is evidence that Plaintiff was exposed to respirable dust from the original gasket and packing used with a single Buffalo electric fire pump, and the original gasket used with a single Buffalo evaporator pump —-, maritime law requires more than a “mere minimal exposure” to support a finding of causation. (Citation omitted.) As such, no reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured and/or supplied by Defendant such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness.
On the basis of the record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was a substantial cause of [plaintiff’s] mesothelioma would be akin to saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has substantially contributed to the ocean’s volume.
While the order from Judge Robreno gives us at least one example of what does not constitute a substantial factor, it provides scant guidance as to how to assess future cases. Nevertheless, at least when maritime law is applied, it is reassuring to know that there are some acknowledged exposure scenarios that do not qualify as substantial factors.
On July 11, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court released an opinion of major importance in Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific — an opinion Gordon & Rees partner William A. Ruskin recently commented on in a Law360 article. The court’s decision reaffirmed the bedrock significance of the concept of dose in toxic tort litigation and rejected out of hand the argument that a less rigorous standard should be applied in a mesothelioma case than in an asbestosis case. Bostic articulated that plaintiffs must prove substantial factor causation in all toxic tort litigation in general and in asbestos litigation in particular.
Timothy Bostic’s relatives sued Georgia-Pacific and 39 other asbestos-related product manufacturers claiming that Bostic’s fatal mesothelioma was caused by exposure to their products. At trial in 2006, the jury allocated 25 percent of the causation to Knox Glass Co., the decedent’s former employer, and 75 percent to Georgia-Pacific. An amended judgment awarded plaintiffs over $11 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s asbestos was a substantial factor in bringing about Bostic’s death.
In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court held that the substantial factor causation standard applies to all asbestos cases involving multiple sources of exposure. To meet this standard, proof of “some exposure” or “any exposure” did not suffice to establish causation. Instead, there must be defendant-specific evidence relating to the approximate dose to which the plaintiff was exposed, along with evidence that the dose was a substantial factor in causing the asbestos-related disease.
Fundamentally, a plaintiff must show that the defendant supplied the product that caused the injury. Hence, the court viewed plaintiff’s “any exposure” theory as “illogical,” in part because it does not take into account a background dose of exposure. In asbestos-related cancer cases, plaintiffs are not required to show that specific fibers from a defendant’s products were the ones that actually caused the asbestos-related cancer. Instead, it must be shown that exposure to a defendant’s product was a substantial factor in contributing to the total dose of asbestos the plaintiff inhaled, and therefore to the risk of developing asbestos-related disease.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court, however, stating that the plaintiffs do not have to meet the heightened standard of “but-for” causation. Although the court recognized that “producing cause” or “but-for” is the level of causation applicable to most products liability cases, it was unwilling to apply that standard in a case with 40 defendants.
Acknowledging that causation is difficult to prove in multidefendant cases, the court referenced its prior holding in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997), which offers an alternative method for establishing causation in the absence of direct proof. Havner recognized the possibility of using epidemiological studies to prove a population exposed to a toxin faces the increased risk of injury as compared to an unexposed or general population. Under Havner, the epidemiological evidence must show that the plaintiff’s exposure to the defendant’s product more than doubled the plaintiff’s risk of contracting the disease.
In essence, the Texas Supreme Court found the causation evidence in Bostic to be legally insufficient to uphold the trial verdict. The plaintiffs did not establish any approximation of dose resulting from Bostic’s exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s products. Bostic rejected the plaintiffs’ “any exposure” standard and instead reaffirmed adherence to substantial factor causation.
Alexana Gaspari is a law clerk in Gordon & Rees’s New York office.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.