Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingmotionsummary judgmentcorporationrespondent
plaintiffappealhearingmotionsummary judgmentleasecorporationcase lawrespondent

Related Cases

Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of America, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 453 N.E.2d 666, 116 Lab.Cas. P 56,408, 6 O.B.R. 421
View Case »
Wilkins v. City of Haverhill, 468 Mass. 86, 8 N.E.3d 753, 304 Ed. Law Rep. 602
View Case »
Lee v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 721 F.Supp. 89, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,369
View Case »
Thomas ex rel. Gramling v. Mallett, 285 Wis.2d 236, 2005 WI 129, 701 N.W.2d 523
View Case »
Slocum v. Donahue, 44 Mass.App.Ct. 937, 693 N.E.2d 179
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Reiter v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 417 Md. 57, 8 A.3d 725, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,531

Facts

The Petitioners are the widows of steelworkers who worked at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Sparrows Point facility and claimed their husbands died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure from products supplied by the Respondents. The cases were consolidated into two groups, and after a motions hearing, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the Respondents. The Petitioners appealed, arguing that they had presented sufficient evidence of exposure to the Respondents' products.

The Petitioners in the case at bar are the widows of steelworkers who were employed by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation at its Sparrows Point facility … At the conclusion of a two day motions hearing, the Circuit Court granted Respondents' motions for summary judgment, and entered judgment against each of the Petitioners.

Issue

Whether the grant of summary judgment dismissing the Petitioners' asbestos injury claims constituted error due to insufficient evidence of substantial factor causation and the requirement of direct testimonial evidence of specific exposures.

Whether the grant of summary judgment dismissing [Petitioners'] asbestos injury claims as a matter of law on the issue of substantial factor causation constitutes error where [Petitioners] presented evidence that asbestos-containing crane brakes of the [Respondents] were present throughout the areas where [Petitioners] worked and that [Petitioners] worked in the vicinity of those crane brakes when the crane brakes emitted asbestos-containing dust to which [Petitioners] were exposed[?]

Rule

The court applied the frequency, regularity, and proximity test to determine the legal sufficiency of evidence of substantial factor causation in asbestos personal injury cases.

The Court is mindful of the case law which has been adverted to by all parties concerned, in particular the Balbos case, and would note that in Balbos, the Court of Appeals adopted what is known as the frequency, regularity, and proximity test to determine the legal sufficiency of evidence of substantial factor causation in asbestos personal injury cases.

Analysis

The court found that while the Petitioners presented evidence of exposure to asbestos dust, it was insufficient to establish that the Respondents' products were used at the specific sites where the decedents worked. The court emphasized the need for evidence showing that the decedents were in proximity to the specific products and that the exposure was regular and frequent.

Taking into account the massive cavernous size of the facilities as well as the distance from laborers to the braking systems on the cranes, plaintiffs have … failed to show that workers were sufficiently proximate to or in the vicinity of the crane brakes to be considered in or very near the presence of asbestos-containing products and able to inhale fibers released from the products.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, concluding that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the Respondents' products were used at the specific sites where the Petitioners' husbands worked.

We shall therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Who won?

Respondents prevailed in the case because the court found that the Petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the Respondents' products to the specific sites of exposure.

Respondents were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the decedents did not work 'directly on' or 'immediately adjacent to' crane brakes.

You must be