Opinion ID: 1670551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Clarification of Verdict Director

Text: The verdict director against Fibreboard reads as follows: Your verdict must be for plaintiffs against defendant Fibreboard Corporation if you believe: First, plaintiffs are the husband and children of Gloria Hagen, and Second, defendant Fibreboard Corporation sold insulation products containing asbestos in the course of its business, and Third, the insulation products containing asbestos were then in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use, and Fourth, the insulation products containing asbestos were used in a manner reasonably anticipated, and Fifth, such defective condition as existed when the insulation products containing asbestos were sold either directly caused or directly contributed to cause the death of Gloria Hagen. The court also gave a converse instruction at the request of Fibreboard, reading as follows: Your verdict must be for defendant Fibreboard Corporation unless you believe: First, defendant Fibreboard Corporation's insulation products containing asbestos were in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use, and Second, such defective condition as existed when the insulation products containing asbestos were sold either directly caused or directly contributed to cause the death of Gloria Hagen. The court refused an instruction requested by Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois, described as a clarifying instruction and reading as follows: There may be more than one substantial cause of an injury and the existence of other causes does not preclude plaintiffs from recovering if you believe defendants' products were one of the substantial causes of injury. However, for there to be a recovery against a defendant, you must find that Gloria Hagen's exposure to that defendant's product was a substantial contributing factor. The defendants argue that, without the refused instruction, the jury might assume that it could impose liability without finding that Fibreboard's products contributed to Mrs. Hagen's fatal illness. We do not believe that the verdict director, read with the converse, is subject to this criticism. The verdict director might possibly be clearer, especially in a case in which identical instructions are used for several defendants, if the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs were modified, as the defendants suggest, so as to read, the insulation products containing asbestos sold by Fibreboard Corporation ... Counsel who really think that an instruction, apparently proper in form, is ambiguous or confusing should point the problem out, and then opposing counsel should be willing to make clarifying modifications without the need for a ruling by the court. The defendants' requested instruction is objectionable, furthermore, in speaking in terms of substantial causes and substantial contributing factor. Our cases require a showing that an alleged contributing cause is a substantial factor. [8] This language, however, provides a standard for the trial court in the exercise of its duty to determine whether a submissible case has been made and not a formula for instructing the jury. MAI 19.01, in the form here applicable, allowed instruction in terms of directly caused or directly contributed to cause. [9] Only confusion would result if an additional formulation were required.