Opinion ID: 894595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Common Work Site

Text: Plaintiffs argue that each of the plaintiffs worked at the same facility and, therefore, shared a common work site. The defendants counter that the plant was large and had several separate work areas  even separate buildings  that constitute separate work sites. Determining what constitutes a common work site does not turn merely on location, but on the similarity of exposures that occurred at a particular location in order to simplify proof of product identification. [19] Treating the Parker-Hannifin facility as a single work site would greatly complicate product identification in this case because the evidence shows that different mixtures of chemicals were used in different areas of the plant. Use of multiple air conditioning and ventilation systems and downdraft tables reduced the likelihood of exposure to the same chemicals in different areas of the plant. The twenty consolidated plaintiffs selected for trial worked in different areas and have presented no evidence that they were exposed to the same injury-producing chemical mixtures. Because the areas of the plant in which the plaintiffs worked were so diverse, the Parker-Hannifin facility contains multiple work sites. More importantly, the consolidation for trial of the claims of workers from different self-contained sites in the plant will likely unduly prejudice the defendants. Juror confusion is likely because the twenty different plaintiffs will necessarily offer proof of exposure to different chemicals that occurred in different parts of the plant, leading to a spider web of causation evidence linking the numerous defendants to different areas of the plant. This factor therefore weighs against consolidation.