Opinion ID: 3134246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ill 2d at 398-99. Accordingly, this court has caution[ed] against

Text: the indiscriminate application of offensive collateral estoppel where there is no mutuality of parties. Herzog, 167 Ill. 2d at 295-96. Traditionally, one party could seek collateral estoppel against a party opponent only if both had been parties to the prior lawsuit and thereby bound by the outcome of that suit; this requirement was referred to as mutuality. Under the mutuality requirement, plaintiffs in the instant case would not have been able to successfully raise a collateral estoppel bar because they were not parties to or bound by the Kessinger decision. In 1979, however, this court eliminated the mutuality requirement (Illinois State Chamber of Commerce v. Pollution Control Board, 78 Ill. 2d 1 (1979)) and set forth the minimum threshold elements that must be satisfied before the circuit court may conclude that a prior adjudication precludes litigation of an issue in the case before it: (1) the issue decided in the prior suit is identical with the one presented in the pending suit; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication; and (3) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted was either a party or in privity with a party in the prior lawsuit. Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, 78 Ill. 2d at 7; accord Herzog, 167 Ill. 2d at 295; Owens, 125 Ill. 2d at 399-400. In the instant case, the second and third elements are not in dispute, but Grefco strongly contests the existence of a common and controlling issue shared by the instant case and Kessinger. This court has long recognized the importance of the existence of an identical issue to the operation of issue preclusion:  `To operate as an estoppel by verdict it is absolutely necessary that there shall have been a finding of a specific fact in the former judgment or record that is material and controlling in that case and also material and controlling in the pending case. It must also conclusively appear that the matter of fact was so in issue that it was necessarily determined by the court rendering the judgment interposed as a bar by reason of such estoppel. If there is any uncertainty on the point that more than one distinct issue of fact is presented to the court the estoppel will not be applied, for the reason that the court may have decided upon one of the other issues of fact.'  Lange v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago, Inc., 44 Ill. 2d 73, 75 (1969), quoting Hoffman v. Hoffman, 330 Ill. 413, 418 (1928). In Lange, this court reversed a summary judgment entered in favor of a plaintiff who sought to bar defendant from contesting liability in a personal injury action arising out of a collision between the parties' vehicles. The basis of the estoppel was a prior adjudication in which the defendant corporation had sued the plaintiff for damages to the defendant's truck and lost. This court held that the general judgment against the defendant corporation in the prior action could not be used to decide the issue of liability in the plaintiff's subsequent personal injury lawsuit against the same defendant, because the earlier judgment contained no specific findings and could have resulted from the trial court's determination that neither party was negligent, that both were, or that only the corporation was negligent. See also Herzog, 167 Ill. 2d at 297 (it is error [to apply] collateral estoppel where it was impossible to determine on which issue the plaintiff prevailed in the previous case). In the case at bar, both the appellate court majority and plaintiffs fail to identify the material and controlling factual finding that was conclusively resolved against Grefco in Kessinger and which is also the exact and controlling issue central to the instant litigation. The evidence in the Kessinger trial included testimony revealing that the plaintiff, a 15-year employee of UNARCO, had been exposed to dust from both natural and calcined diatomaceous earth. The general verdict did not, however, reveal whether the jury found that only calcined or only natural diatomaceous earth caused the plaintiff's illness, or whether both forms of the earth contributed to the plaintiff's pulmonary fibrosis. In the instant case the trial court ruled, and Grefco agreed, that the result in Kessinger precluded Grefco from asserting to the jury only that pulmonary fibrosis could never result from exposure to diatomaceous earth. Grefco did not violate this ruling and did not deny the possibility that a person could contract silicosis from inhaling dust from diatomaceous earth. The circuit court did not grant preclusive effect to the general verdict in Kessinger, however, on the separate and distinct issue of whether plaintiffs in the case at bar had sustained the type, intensity, and duration of exposure to diatomaceous earth that would result in a significant risk of disease. Nor did the circuit court prohibit Grefco from distinguishing in the instant case between the risks associated with calcined and natural diatomaceous earth, or between the relative risks of miners' and nonminers' exposure to diatomaceous earth. After reviewing the record we conclude that the circuit court's rulings on the scope of collateral estoppel were correct. The appellate court merely pronounces that the evidence in Kessinger indicated that plaintiff had much the same exposure [to diatomaceous earth dust] as did the male plaintiffs here. 273 Ill. App. 3d at 282. However, we reject as unfounded the notion that the Kessinger plaintiff suffered much the same exposure as the male plaintiffs in the case at bar. The plaintiffs in both cases had different periods of employment during which they were exposed. They also had different duties and activities at the plant. The plaintiffs did not share medical histories or current medical conditions. Presumably, the appellate court would equate the instant plaintiffs' distinct circumstances and medical conditions with those of the plaintiff in Kessinger simply because the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits worked at the same UNARCO plant and were exposed at some time to diatomaceous earth supplied by Grefco. That the two cases may share general similarities does not support the conclusion that the Kessinger verdict worked an estoppel of the breadth imagined by the appellate court and plaintiffs in the case at bar. The appellate court majority also implies error in certain remarks Grefco made during opening statement and in summation. These remarks underscored the great number of years of intensive exposure to natural diatomaceous earth that is required before silicosis would develop, most likely in the mining and milling settings as distinct from end use manufacturing plants. However, the record reveals that the parties engaged in extensive pretrial preparation of the case and presented, without objections from either side, detailed opening statements to assist the jury in understanding their respective positions. There is no indication in the record that the jury was confused or misled by the parties' arguments. Moreover, Grefco's opening remarks and its summation were supported by evidence properly admitted at trial. Grefco presented expert witnesses who stated their opinions that the type of exposure to natural diatomaceous earth occurring in the instant case was unlikely to produce disease and in fact had not resulted in silicosis in plaintiffs. Plaintiffs presented their expert witness who expressed his belief that plaintiffs had both asbestosis and silicosis. Therefore, the jury was presented with evidence specific to the facts of the instant case. Some of the evidence was medical and scientific in nature, bearing on the health hazards associated with diatomaceous earth. Grefco was properly allowed to present evidence and argue that end users of natural diatomaceous earth ordinarily did not face a significant health hazard, particularly if they did not inhale the dust over a long period of time. Because it is evident that the material issues of fact with respect to plaintiffs' alleged injuries were not adjudicated by the Kessinger case, Grefco should not have been barred from litigating or contesting whether a particular employee at the Bloomington plant was likely to develop silicosis under the specific circumstances of that employee's inhalation of diatomaceous earth dust. That a jury awarded damages to the Kessinger plaintiff, who sustained injuries following a lengthy exposure to fibrotic material including natural and calcined diatomaceous earth, bears little relevance to this or other litigation involving different plaintiffs with different disease pathologies, different exposure periods to diatomaceous earth, and different issues that might be presented in defense. Allowing plaintiffs in the instant case to benefit from another individual's recovery of damages under dissimilar circumstances is comparable to permitting patients of a doctor found liable for malpractice in one patient's surgery to estop the doctor from fully defending against malpractice suits of the other patients who had the same operation. It is important to bear in mind that issues of causation in a personal injury or products liability case are fact-specific and of limited relevance beyond the circumstances of the particular litigation in which such issues are resolved. See, e.g., Marlow v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 222 Ill. App. 3d 722, 736-37 (1991), quoting Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 2 Ohio St. 3d 193, 203, 443 N.E.2d 978, 987 (1983) (It would not be prudent to raise a decision made by one jury in the context of one set of facts to the standard under which all subsequent cases involving separate underlying factual circumstances are judged). Not all who are exposed to a substance that can cause pulmonary fibrosis develop a disease. Even if the type or duration of exposure is substantially the same, as where two individuals worked side-by- side doing the same tasks for the same length of time, one may remain disease free while the other does not. Problems inherent in attempting to apply collateral estoppel in exposure cases are illustrated in In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987). In that case, a plaintiffs' class of Vietnam War veterans claiming exposure to Agent Orange asserted a common question regarding whether Agent Orange could cause disease. According to plaintiffs' argument, the jury could decide generic causation, i.e., whether Agent Orange could cause disease, as an issue common to all class members' cases. The federal court rejected the argument, noting that the relevant question  is not whether Agent Orange has the capacity to cause harm, the generic causation issue, but whether it did cause harm and to whom. That determination is highly individualistic . In re Agent Orange, 818 F.2d at 164-65. Similarly, in the case at bar the relevant question is not whether natural diatomaceous earth has the capacity to cause harm or whether it did or might have caused harm to another plaintiff, but whether it did in fact cause harm to these plaintiffs. See also Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc, 118 Ill. 2d 23, 45-48 (1987); Morrissy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 76 Ill. App. 3d 753, 761 (1979) (mere exposure to potentially toxic product does not prove that the substance caused disease). Finally, we note that in Betts v. Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, 225 Ill. App. 3d 882 (1992), relied upon by the