Opinion ID: 1395057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-Exposure Evidence

Text: Next, we must consider if the trial court erred in admitting evidence of knowledge of the dangers of asbestos which Raymark acquired after Lockwood's last exposure to asbestos in the shipyards. This evidence was admitted as relevant to Lockwood's claim that Raymark had a continuing duty to warn him of the dangers of its products after he was no longer exposed to asbestos. The evidence at issue consists of three documents dated after 1972, when Lockwood retired. [8] First, Lockwood introduced notes written in 1974 by John Marsh, Raymark's Director of Environmental Affairs. In these notes, Marsh describes his attempts to communicate with Raymark management about the seriousness of the asbestos health issue, and his assessment of that issue. The second document is a post-1974 review of literature on asbestos health from 1906 to 1974, which was prepared by Raymark officials. Finally, Lockwood introduced a 1977 paper by the corporate medical director of Raymark on the medical aspects of occupational exposure to asbestos. Raymark contends that the trial court erred in admitting these documents because they are not relevant to its duty to warn Lockwood of the hazards of asbestos. Raymark argues that any liability for failure to give such a warning depends only on the extent of its knowledge of asbestos hazards when its product was manufactured or sold, or at the latest, when Lockwood was last exposed to asbestos products. It contends that any evidence of knowledge it acquired after Lockwood's last exposure is irrelevant, because there was no continuing duty to warn Lockwood of the dangers of asbestos after he was no longer exposed to the product. [9] First, we address the relevance of the post-exposure evidence to Lockwood's negligence claim. In Ewer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 4 Wn. App. 152, 161-62, 480 P.2d 260 (1971), the court held that a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers of the dangerous propensities of its product of which it has knowledge, unless such dangers are obvious. However, the defendant in Ewer knew that its product was potentially hazardous before the particular product that caused the plaintiff's injury was sold. Thus, that case does not concern whether a manufacturer has a continuing duty to warn persons of dangers about which it learns after such persons are exposed to its product. In Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So.2d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984), the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the health hazards of using asbestos products after the period when plaintiff was exposed to such products. The court held that the defendant's continuing duty to warn after the date of plaintiff's last exposure was properly at issue under the plaintiff's general claim of a negligent failure to warn. Furthermore, the post-exposure evidence was relevant to the defendant's continuing duty to warn. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., at 256. Lockwood argues that, because of the unique nature of asbestos exposure and disease, it is particularly appropriate to recognize a continuing duty to warn after such exposure ceases. Lockwood emphasizes that the health risks to persons exposed to asbestos continue after exposure. Hence, cases involving asbestos exposure are different from many other cases involving failure to warn of the dangers of a product, where the danger often ceases once the product is no longer being used. Specifically, Lockwood points out that after his exposure to asbestos ended, he permanently carried in his lungs the asbestos fibers he had inhaled. Lockwood argues that if he had been informed after he stopped working at the shipyards of the danger due to asbestos exposure and of the risk of smoking while asbestos fibers remained in his body, he could have reduced his disability by stopping smoking. [7] We believe that where a person's susceptibility to the danger of a product continues after that person's direct exposure to the product has ceased, the manufacturer still has a duty after exposure to exercise reasonable care to warn the person of known dangers, if the warning could help to prevent or lessen the harm. Such a warning should be required to the extent practicable. Thus, it will depend on the circumstances if a warning to previous users of the product must be made by direct personal contact with such users. Alternative warning methods which may be reasonable in a given situation might include notices to physicians or advertisements. In this case, in view of the expert testimony at trial that asbestos remains in the lungs long after exposure and that cigarette smoking aggravates asbestosis, we believe that if Raymark had made a reasonable effort to provide Lockwood with the information it acquired about the dangers of asbestos exposure after his retirement, the seriousness of his injury might have been reduced. Under these circumstances, Raymark had a continuing duty to warn Lockwood of the known dangers of its product after he was no longer exposed to it. Therefore, the evidence of Raymark's knowledge of the hazards of asbestos after Lockwood's exposure ceased was relevant to his negligence claim. [10] Raymark also contends that even if the post-exposure evidence was relevant to Lockwood's negligence claim, it was irrelevant to his strict liability claim. This argument appears to be highly persuasive. However, as with the Sumner Simpson papers, Raymark did not request an instruction limiting the use of the post-exposure evidence to Lockwood's negligence claim. Therefore, Raymark failed to preserve whatever error occurred in admitting this evidence with respect to Lockwood's strict liability claim. Raymark also argues that the post-exposure evidence was inadmissible hearsay. The Court of Appeals determined that the record failed to disclose an objection to the trial court on this basis and, therefore, declined to consider this issue. Lockwood v. A C & S, Inc., 44 Wn. App. 330, 351 n. 18, 722 P.2d 826 (1986). At trial, Raymark did object to the admission of the John Marsh documents and mentioned that it had submitted a brief discussing hearsay problems. That brief deals only with hearsay problems of the American Textile Institute documents and does not mention the Marsh documents. However, later at trial, Raymark seems to have argued that these documents could not be considered admissions on behalf of Raymark. The parties also engaged in other discussions with the trial court about these documents which alluded to hearsay problems. Thus, we conclude that Raymark properly preserved this issue for review. Lockwood argues that these documents were admissible under ER 801(d)(2), which provides that an admission by a party opponent is not hearsay. ER 801(d)(2) states, in pertinent part: A statement is not hearsay if  ... (2) Admission by Party-Opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is ... (iii) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject, or (iv) a statement by his agent or servant acting within the scope of his authority to make the statement for the party ... In order for a statement to satisfy these requirements, the declarant must be authorized to make the particular statement at issue, or statements concerning the subject matter, on behalf of the party. Kadiak Fisheries Co. v. Murphy Diesel Co., 70 Wn.2d 153, 163, 422 P.2d 496 (1967); Barrie v. Hosts of Am., Inc., 94 Wn.2d 640, 644, 618 P.2d 96 (1980). There is no evidence that Raymark expressly authorized the declarants to make the specific statements in these documents on its behalf. Where a person does not have specific express authority to make statements on behalf of a party, the overall nature of his authority to act for the party may determine if he is a speaking agent. 5A K. Tegland, Wash. Prac., Evidence § 349, at 160 (2d ed. 1982). In light of the declarants' authority to act as health officials for Raymark, it is reasonable to infer that they were authorized to make statements about the subject of asbestos health issues on Raymark's behalf. Therefore, we conclude that the documents were admissions by a party opponent. [8] Raymark also argues that even if the declarants of the statements in these documents were authorized speaking agents of Raymark, the statements are inadmissible because they are opinions and not statements of fact. In Liljeblom v. Department of Labor & Indus., 57 Wn.2d 136, 143, 356 P.2d 307 (1960), this court stated that an agent's statement must be a statement of fact and not an expression of opinion in order to be admissible against his principal. However, later cases have questioned the soundness of this proposition, suggesting that the focus should be on whether the statement was made within the authorized scope of the speaker's duties, not on the form of the statement. See Kennard v. Mountain View Dev. Co., 69 Wn.2d 492, 495, 419 P.2d 154 (1966); Young v. Group Health Coop., 85 Wn.2d 332, 337, 534 P.2d 1349 (1975). We agree with these cases that, under ER 801(d)(2), the important consideration is not if the statement was one of fact or opinion, but if the declarant had the authority to make it on behalf of the party. ER 801(d)(2) itself does not distinguish between admissions of fact and admissions in the form of opinions. We see no reason to distinguish an agent's statement in the form of an opinion from other opinion evidence. Generally, opinion evidence is admissible if it is helpful to the trier of fact. ER 701, 702. We conclude that, if a statement meets the criteria for an admission by a party opponent in ER 801(d)(2), it is not excludable because it is in the form of an opinion, as long as it is helpful to the trier of fact. See 5A K. Tegland § 344, at 149-50; § 349, at 160. To the extent that the statements in the documents at issue here include opinions, we hold that they were not excludable on that basis. [9] Alternatively, Raymark argues that, even if the statements in the literature review and in the paper on medical aspects of asbestos exposure are those of authorized speaking agents for Raymark, they should have been excluded because they were not made by speakers with firsthand knowledge of the facts. Generally, arguments for exclusion of evidence on these grounds have been based on the theory that statements of an agent without firsthand knowledge could too easily be based on rumor or speculation to be routinely admitted. See 5A K. Tegland § 344, at 149. The documents at issue in this case do not suffer from this deficiency. Both documents are in the nature of scholarly papers and contain extensive footnotes to sources. Because there is no indication that they are based on rumor or speculation, there was no reason to exclude them on grounds that they did not represent firsthand knowledge of the speakers. In summary, we are unpersuaded by Raymark's arguments against the admissibility of the post-exposure evidence. This evidence was relevant to Lockwood's negligence claim. In addition, it was not inadmissible hearsay. The trial court did not err in admitting this evidence.