Opinion ID: 894595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Similar Occupations

Text: There is no dispute that the twenty plaintiffs had dissimilar occupations. In Ethyl, we concluded that the fact that the plaintiffs held different jobs was not enough to warrant relief because the record did not show that the different jobs resulted in differing exposure levels. [20] But the issue in Ethyl was whether different occupations, such as pipe fitters and insulators, suffered different levels of exposure to a single toxin  asbestos. In the instant case, the issue is not different exposure levels to a single chemical, but rather, exposure to different chemicals altogether. Numerous possible toxins are alleged to have caused the plaintiffs' injuries. Further complicating the matter is that the plaintiffs do not allege that these chemicals individually caused the assorted harms, but instead were mixed into a toxic soup, with various harmful combinations of toxins from many different defendants. Consolidating claims under these facts will undoubtedly lead to juror confusion, unfairly prejudicing the defendants. Not only would jurors be forced to keep track of various exposure levels, but the jury would also need to follow the varying exposures to the fifty-five original defendants' chemicals and the many more chemical combinations used at different work sites. Because of these facts, this factor weighs against consolidation of the twenty plaintiffs' claims.