Opinion ID: 2539162
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mass-Accident Case

Text: Simpson further maintains that the circuit judge abused her discretion because she treated this toxic-tort case as a mass-accident case. Again, Simpson is in error. The critical issue in our review is whether the circuit judge abused her discretion in finding that the requirements of Rule 23 were met in this particular case and not whether the case was wrongly categorized. This case, moreover, is distinguishable from the toxic-tort cases cited by Simpson. Simpson cites this court first to our opinion in Baker v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division, a case in which this court affirmed the circuit court's denial of a motion to certify a class action. 338 Ark. 242, 992 S.W.2d 797 (1999). The plaintiffs in Baker sued multiple defendants for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of taking various diet drugs. The plaintiffs brought suit for negligence, products liability, failure to warn, and breach of express and implied warranties. The circuit judge declined to certify the class because he found that individual issues precluded a finding that common questions predominated. This court affirmed, holding that this case presents numerous individual issues that go to the heart of the defendants' conduct, causation, injury, and damages such that the defendants' liability as to each plaintiff will have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 249, 992 S.W.2d at 801. We further noted that the amount or combination of diet drugs a plaintiff took, combined with her personal medical history, might make the drugs dangerous for one party and not for another. Simpson cites, in addition, Arthur v. Zearley for the proposition that toxic-tort cases, as opposed to mass-accident cases, are not well suited to class treatment. 320 Ark. 273, 895 S.W.2d 928 (1995). In Arthur, plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against various defendants for multiple tort claims, which centered on the allegedly improper surgical implantation of a product known as Orthoblock into the plaintiffs' spines. The circuit court certified the class, and this court reversed. We held that the issue of informed consent with respect to class members was foundational and could not be tried on a class basis. Id. at 283, 895 S.W.2d at 933. We further held that each plaintiff's unique medical history and condition, diagnosis, and treatment plan were individualized questions that predominated over common questions of liability. Id. at 286, 895 S.W.2d at 935. In the instant case, if the HVAC units and the storage closets where they were housed were defectively designed and constructed, and Simpson knew or should have known of the defect and failed to advise tenants, Simpson may be found liable. That is the same fundamental, overarching issue of liability common to all putative class members. The other individualized issues go to damages, which can be determined in a bifurcated proceeding. That is a categorically different situation from the two medical cases relied on by the defendants.