California Limits Take-Home Claims and Affirms That “Substantial Factor” Means More than “Possible”

A California appellate court has sided with the defendants in an alleged take-home asbestos exposure case. Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (July 5, 2017, B245027) —Cal.App.5th—presents many strong arguments for defendants, including what is required to show that an asbestos product was a substantial factor in causing asbestos disease.

Plaintiffs Joseph and Marline Petitpas alleged that Joseph Petitpas’ work at a gas station owned by Exxon and at various construction sites brought home asbestos which injured Ms. Petitpas.

I.  Take Home Exposures – Duty Not Extended

While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kesner v. Sup. Ct. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132. Kesner allowed take home cases to be brought in California. However, it limited those cases to household members, reasoning that “persons who live with the worker and are thus foreseeably in close and sustained contact with the worker over a significant period of time” are protected. (Id. at 1154-1155.) In Kesner, the injured person was the nephew of a worker who lived for periods of time with his uncle, who manufactured brake linings. In Petipas, Plaintiffs conceded that the parties did not live together when Mr. Petitpas worked at the Exxon station (they were married later). The court in Petipas declined Plaintiffs’ invitation to extend the duty in take home cases to non-household members. “Inviting a trial to determine whether a non-household member’s contact with the employee was ‘similar to the status of a household member’ appears to be exactly what the Supreme Court was attempting to avoid with this bright-line rule.”

II.  Substantial Factor – Probable vs. Possible

To meet their burden in an asbestos case, plaintiffs must show that there is exposure to a defendant’s product that was “in reasonable medical probability” a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 982.) Many factors are considered to determine if the exposures are substantial factors, including frequency, proximity and duration of the exposures. The evidence in this case merely suggested it was possible that Mr. Petitpas brought asbestos dust home on his clothing from his inspection of construction jobs. He only did this for an hour a day and returned to his office for the remainder. Neither Plaintiff testified that Ms. Petitpas shook out his clothes when washing them. Further, it was merely possible she was exposed when visiting the construction sites, because there was no active construction occurring and there was no visible dust. Mere presence of asbestos at a site was simply not sufficient to show that asbestos-containing products used at these sites was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Petitpas’ mesothelioma.

III.  Replacement Parts Doctrine – Applies to Defect as Well as Failure to Warn Claims

Ford submitted a jury instruction which stated that it was not liable for exposure to replacement brakes, clutches and gaskets on Ford vehiclesthat were manufactured by parties other than Ford. This instruction was based upon O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335. The O’Neil decision established that a product manufacturer cannot be held liable in strict liability or negligence for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product “unless the defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm, or the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products.” Plaintiffs objected that O’Neil only applied to failure to warn cases, and that Ford’s design was defective because “it is a Ford design that called for the installation and inclusion of asbestos-containing brake products, whether or not they were made by Ford or anyone else.” The court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument because they did not present any evidence that the Ford cars were unable to use non-asbestos parts or were somehow incompatible with non-asbestos parts.

IV.  Jury Instructions in Asbestos Cases

Plaintiffs also argued that the trial court committed error by allowing jury instructions CACI Nos. 430 and 435 to be read to the jury. Both of these instructions give the jury direction on what a “substantial factor” is under California law.  CACI No. 430, the generally applicable instruction, defines “substantial factor” as a factor that “contributed to the harm.” This Use Notes for this instruction state that it should not be read in asbestos related cancer cases.  However, Exxon argued that CACI No. 430 was applicable to it because it was a premises liability defendant, not a product manufacturer or supplier. CACI No. 435 is the instruction for asbestos cancer cases.

CACI No. 435, applicable in asbestos cases only, defines “substantial factor” as one that “contributed to the risk,” not just the harm. Plaintiffs argued that using CACI No. 430 confused the jury and imposed a greater burden on them.

The court allowed both instructions to be read. “That the Use Notes caution against giving the more general CACI No. 430 in a mesothelioma case, when the more specific instruction CACI No. 435 is more applicable, does not support a conclusion that it was error to give both instructions. CACI No. 430 is a correct statement of the law relating to substantial factor causation, even though, as Rutherford noted, more specific instructions also must be given in a mesothelioma case.”

V.  No Studies Show Take-Home Hazards from Brake Repair

The jury found that Exxon did not know, and should not have reasonably known, that Mr. Petitpas’ work at the gas station put Ms. Petitpas at unreasonable risk.

Plaintiffs argued that because the management at Exxon refineries knew about the hazards of asbestos, their agents at service stations also knew. The court did not agree with this argument. Since the jury only heard evidence that conditions at other locations posed a risk to other classes of employees (which Exxon knew about), the jury properly found that Exxon did not know about the risks at its service stations.

The Petitpas court went so far as to suggest that had the jury found otherwise, it would have to be reversed. Dr. Castleman admitted that there were no studies “of any statistical power…that speak of the mesothelioma risk of mechanics that do brake repair work” and that no such studies exist today. Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Horn also conceded this fact. Therefore, the court reasoned, “There was no evidence linking asbestos exposure to occasional bystanders who were near automotive workers as they did brake work.” The court’s conclusion in Petitpas can and should be used as an argument in all brake take-home repair cases.

This decision bodes well for defendants challenging plaintiffs’ often broad and sweeping allegations in asbestos cases.

California Adopts “Sophisticated Intermediary” Defense

Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court formally adopted the “sophisticated intermediary” defense for product suppliers. The court significantly restricted applicability of the defense, however, and ruled that there was insufficient evidence in this case that Johns-Manville qualified as such an intermediary.

5-24Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. articulated the defense as follows: “a [product] supplier may discharge its duty to warn end users about known or knowable risks in the use of its product if it: (1) provides adequate warnings to the product’s immediate purchaser, or sells to a sophisticated purchaser that it knows is aware or should be aware of the specific danger, and (2) reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey appropriate warnings to downstream users who will encounter the product.”

Perhaps the most significant hurdle to use of the defense in the future is the requirement that “a product supplier must show not only that it warned or sold to a knowledgeable intermediary, but also that it actually and reasonably relied on the intermediary to convey warnings to end users.”

The challenge posed by that requirement was exemplified here, where the Supreme Court ruled that Special Electric, a 2-person broker of raw crocidolite asbestos, had a duty to warn asbestos behemoth Johns-Manville and the downstream users of Johns-Manville products that incorporated Special Electric-brokered raw material. In part, this reflected a welcome understanding about the divergent toxicities of the different minerals classified together as asbestos. “Although the record clearly shows Johns-Manville was aware of the risks of asbestos in general, no evidence established it knew about the particularly acute risks posed by the crocidolite asbestos Special Electric supplied.”

Webb identified four other reasons why the evidence did not justify the trial court’s decision to grant a defense JNOV in the face of a jury verdict finding negligence.

  1. “The evidence is disputed about whether Special Electric consistently provided warnings to Johns-Manville during the relevant time frame.” Note that it is not just “warnings,” but “consistent warnings.”
  2. “[P]laintiffs presented evidence that at least one Special Electric salesperson told customers crocidolite was safer than other types of asbestos fiber, when the opposite was true. If the jury credited this evidence, it may have found it unreasonable for Special Electric to believe Johns-Manville was so sophisticated that a warning about the particular dangers of crocidolite asbestos was not called for.”
  3. Further, “the record does not establish as a matter of law that Special Electric actually and reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn end users like William Webb about the dangers of asbestos. We recognize that direct proof of actual reliance may be difficult to obtain when, as in the case of latent disease, the material was supplied to an intermediary long ago. However, actual reliance is an inference the factfinder should be able to draw from circumstantial evidence about the parties’ dealings.”
  4. “[T]he jury could have reasonably determined that any reliance on Johns-Manville would have been unjustified. Plaintiffs presented testimony from a former Johns-Manville employee criticizing the company’s handling of asbestos warnings and asserting it had failed to warn its own workers about the hazards of asbestos before the mid-1970s.”

While this evidence may be slim, it was enough to support the jury’s finding of negligence and thus to overrule the trial court’s grant of JNOV to the defense. The evidence in the case may also have been sufficient to support a jury finding that Special Electric was entitled to rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense, but the issue was presented only to the court and not to the jury.

Webb overruled an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had rejected the sophisticated intermediary defense on the rationale that “that doctrine, where it applies at all, applies only if a manufacturer provided adequate warnings to the intermediary.” Webb ruled that “[t]his assertion cannot be reconciled with our analysis in Johnson [v. American Standard, the key California “sophisticated user” decision].Insofar as it expresses a different view, Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. is disapproved.” So in at least some cases a defendant that provides no warnings can rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense.

A footnote that is off the main point is nevertheless a troubling sign for product liability defendants, because it appears to allow very speculative evidence about whether a plaintiff ever encountered a defendant’s product. “Plaintiffs introduced evidence that Webb was exposed to dust from Johns-Manville products containing trace amounts of crocidolite at roughly the same time Special Electric was supplying crocidolite asbestos to Johns-Manville. While evidence of the link could be stronger, it is nonetheless sufficient for the jury to have found that Special Electric’s asbestos was a substantial factor in causing Webb’s mesothelioma.” “[E]vidence of the link could be stronger” is an understatement. This footnote portends both an easier path for plaintiffs to “prove” exposure, and a court not willing to put much “substantial” in “substantial factor.”

Ninth Circuit Rejects Plaintiffs’ “Every Exposure Counts” Theory

4-4A Ninth Circuit panel including former Chief Judge Kozinski last week rejected the “every exposure” theory advanced by many plaintiff expert witnesses, who thereby try to impose liability on defendants responsible for only vanishingly small amounts of asbestos.

McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. framed the question in terms of the substantial factor test. “Absent direct evidence of causation, a party may satisfy the substantial-factor test by demonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.” The Ninth Circuit found this evidence lacking, thereby justifying summary judgment to defendants.

At most the heirs have provided evidence that McIndoe was “frequently” present during the removal of insulation aboard the Worden and was present 20–30 times during such removal aboard the Coral Sea. But, as the district court found, even if McIndoe was around asbestos dust several times, his heirs presented no evidence regarding the amount of exposure to dust from originally installed asbestos, or critically, the duration of such exposure during any of these incidents.

Plaintiffs “argue[d] that evidence of prolonged exposure is not needed, because they presented the opinion of Dr. Allen Raybin—a medical expert who asserted that every exposure to asbestos above a threshold level is necessarily a substantial factor in the contraction of asbestos-related diseases.”

Both the Ninth Circuit and the district court rejected this argument on the ground that the “every exposure” theory of asbestos causation” amounts “to reject[ing] the substantial-factor test as a whole.” Plaintiffs’ expert “did not make distinctions between the overall dose of asbestos McIndoe breathed aboard the ships and that portion of such exposure which could be attributed to the shipbuilders’ materials,” and his “testimony aims more to establish a legal conclusion—what general level of asbestos exposure is required to show disease causation—than to establish the facts of McIndoe’s own injuries.” Thus, the defendant shipbuilders were entitled to summary judgment.

McIndoe was decided under federal maritime law, and so may not be directly applicable in state law cases. It joins a long list of cases that have rejected the every exposure theory, but interestingly comes mere weeks after a California appeals court allowed every exposure testimony. McIndoe’s emphasis on the amount and duration of exposure is consistent with most decisions on point, and may offer an additional reason for California defendants to seek to remove cases to federal court.

In another holding, McIndoe found that naval warships do not constitute “products,” so that only negligence and not strict liability was available to plaintiffs. Arguably the holding on required evidence of substantial factor causation would be the same under both theories.

California appellate court bucks national trend, allows plaintiff experts to opine that “every asbestos exposure is a substantial factor”

Courts from around the country have rejected efforts by plaintiff experts to testify that every asbestos exposure is a substantial factor in causing disease. On March 3, 2016, California’s second appellate district went the other way, and held in Davis v. Honeywell International, Inc. that the controversial “every exposure counts” theory is admissible under governing expert witness law.   Thus, although trial courts are supposed to play a “gatekeeper” role in keeping out unreliable expert evidence (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747), Davis breaks the gate wide open in allowing a jury, not the trial court in its “gatekeeper” role, to decide whether to accept the theory.

Davis was aGATEPICTURE wrongful death case.  Sam Davis  worked as an auto mechanic and home remodeler from approximately 1963 to 1979.  He performed “one or two” brake jobs per day, and always used Bendix brake linings (for which defendant Honeywell was responsible). These linings contained 50 percent chrysotile asbestos by weight.  He was also allegedly exposed to asbestos as a result of his home remodel work.

Prior to trial, Honeywell filed a motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from presenting expert opinion testimony that every exposure to asbestos above background contributed to decedent’s disease. The motion was denied, and plaintiff’s pathologist (James A. Strauchen, M.D.) and pulmonologist (William Rom, M.D.) were permitted to testify and advance the theory. Ultimately, the jury found for plaintiffs, and Honeywell appealed.

Honeywell’s primary basis for appeal was that the “every exposure counts” testimony of Dr. Strauchen should have been excluded. Honeywell advanced four arguments:  (1) the testimony was speculative and illogical; (2) the regulatory standards Strauchen relied upon cannot establish causation; (3) no appropriate scientific literature supports the theory; and (4) the theory is contrary to California causation law espoused in Rutherford v. Owens Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, which held that not every exposure to asbestos is a “substantial factor” in causing disease.

Davis rejected each of Honeywell’s arguments. “Having reviewed much of the commentary and scientific literature cited in support of and against the ‘every exposure’ theory, we conclude that the theory is the subject of legitimate scientific debate.   Because in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony the trial court ‘does not resolve scientific controversies (Sargon), it is for the jury to resolve the conflict between the every exposure theory and any competing expert opinions.”  The court focused largely on the mere existence of evidence that supported the “every exposure counts” theory, and declined to weigh the evidence or any competing inferences.   “While Honeywell is generally correct that in many (or even most) instances epidemiological studies provide the best evidence of causation, its implied argument that it is improper for an expert to rely upon any other tools to determine causation, such as case reports, is not universally accepted.”  As to Honeywell’s argument that “every exposure” contravenes Rutherford, Davis  interpreted Rutherford as not requiring a “dose level estimation,” instead issuing a sweeping statement interpreting Rutherford as supporting the conclusion that even a very small “dose” could increase the risk of asbestos-related cancer.  Davis distinguished the many cases from other jurisdictions rejecting this argument, including Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2012) 615 Pa. 504, Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (Tex. 2014) 439 S.W.3d 332 and Moeller v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (6th Cir. 2011) 660 F.3d 950. “[W]e simply disagree” that the “every exposure” theory could not be “reconciled with the fact that mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are dose-dependent.”

The Davis court did state, however, that “[w]e caution that our discussion of the materials Dr. Strauchen relied upon should not be seen as approval of either side in that scientific dispute.  Rather, we rely upon the rule of Sargon that although trial courts ‘have a substantial ‘gatekeeping’ responsibility,’ in evaluating proposed expert opinion . . . the gate tended is not a partisan checkpoint . . . If the opinion is based on materials on which the expert may reasonably rely in forming the opinion, and flows in a reasoned chain of logic from those materials rather than from speculation or conjecture, the opinion may pass, even though the trial court or other experts disagree with its conclusion or the methods and materials used to reach it.  (emphasis added)

Further, although much of the discussion relates to the “any exposure” theory, Davis pointed out that the case did not hinge on that theory.  “In this case, Dr. Strauchen was presented with a hypothetical based on the facts surrounding Davis’ exposure to dust from his work on Bendix brake linings, and testified as to estimates of the amount of asbestos fibers contained in visible dust. Therefore, his conclusion that Davis’ exposure to Bendix brake linings was a substantial factor in contributing to the risk of mesothelioma was not based simply on “any exposure” to asbestos, but instead related to an estimate of actual exposure.”

The decision is not yet final. It is still subject to a petition for rehearing, which could result in a change in the opinion, and to either or both a request for depublication and a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, either of which if granted would make this decision uncitable in California courts, though not necessarily elsewhere.

Washington Court Clarifies When Product Sellers’ General Immunity from Product Liability Applies

The Washington Court of Appeals recently published a product liability opinion that clarifies how a court should decide whether a product-seller defendant is subject to Washington’s common law or the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA).  Which law applies is significant for product sellers because they are subject to strict liability under Washington’s common law, but are generally immune from liability under the WPLA absent limited exceptions.  In Fagg v. Bartells Asbestos Settlement Trust (Dec. 8, 2014), the court held that in cases involving a plaintiff’s exposure to injury-causing products both before and after the WPLA’s effective date of July 26, 1981, a defendant-specific exposure analysis is proper to determine which law applies to a particular defendant.  The court concluded that unless substantially all of the plaintiff’s exposure to a particular defendant’s product occurred before July 26, 1981, the WPLA, and its general immunization for product-seller defendants, applies.

In Fagg, the plaintiff alleged injurious-exposure to various asbestos-containing products manufactured and sold by separate defendants from the 1950s to the 1990s.  The plaintiff also claimed he was exposed to asbestos while enlisted in the Navy in the 1960s, and from living and vacationing near the Libby, Montana superfund site from the early 1980s to 2007.  The Court of Appeals considered how to determine whether WPLA applies to a plaintiff alleging prolonged exposure to injury-causing products – should a court aggregate a plaintiff’s exposure to all injury-causing products regardless of source, or should the court evaluate a plaintiff’s exposure on a defendant-specific basis.  Prior to the Fagg opinion, Washington law was undecided on this issue.

The Fagg court held that a defendant-specific exposure analysis is the proper measure to determine if the WPLA applies to a plaintiff’s claim.  To determine if the WPLA applies to a plaintiff’s claims against a particular defendant, a court must look at the plaintiff’s allegations of injurious-exposure to only that defendant’s product.

Underlying the Fagg court’s holding was the Washington Supreme Court decisions in Simonetta v. Viad Corp., Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, and Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., which concluded that injuries from products outside a defendant’s “chain of distribution” are not actionable.  Accordingly, the Fagg court held that in determining what law applies to a plaintiff’s claim against a particular defendant – common law or the WPLA – a court must examine the plaintiff’s alleged injurious-exposure to only that defendant’s product.

In reaching its holding, the Fagg court affirmed the calculus used to decide if the WPLA applies to claims against a particular defendant:  “the WPLA applies unless ‘substantially all’ of the exposure occurred before” the WPLA’s effective date, July 26, 1981.  Thus, to bring a common law claim, an asbestos-plaintiff must show that substantially all of his injury-causing exposure to that defendant’s product occurred before 1981.

The Fagg court’s holding is significant for product sellers because of the different liability standards under the common law and the WPLA for product sellers.  If the Fagg court had concluded that an aggregate-exposure analysis should be used to determine whether the WPLA applied, this could impose the common law (and thus strict liability) on a product seller if substantially all of a plaintiff’s aggregate asbestos exposure occurred before 1981, even though the plaintiff’s exposure to the particular seller’s product occurred only after 1981.  This would thwart the Legislature’s intent when it enacted the WPLA to insulate product sellers from liability.  Instead, the Fagg court’s holding ensures that a product seller is held to the proper liability standard – common law or WPLA – based upon when a plaintiff was allegedly exposed to the specific seller’s product.

The Fagg court also discussed the meaning of “substantially all.”  The court noted with approval cases and Washington law that define substantially all as “‘nearly all,’” all except “‘a negligible minority’ or when a ‘practically negligible’ amount remains,” and “‘essentially all.’”  The Fagg court also cited positively cases which have quantified “substantially all” to mean “85 percent or more.”  Although the court declined to adopt a definition of “substantially all,” practitioners, and particularly product-seller defendants, should be able to use the Fagg court’s language and cited cases to better argue that the protections afforded by the WPLA apply to a given case.

MDL Court Rules That Work on Two Pumps Not a Substantial Factor

Substantial factor?  I know it when I see it.

Many of us have struggled for quite some time in reaching a consensus on what level of exposure does, and does not, constitute a “substantial factor” when assessing causation of an asbestos-related disease.  In a recent order on a motion for summary judgment, Judge Eduardo Robreno of the asbestos MDL, applying maritime law, weighed in on the issue.  His decision gives additional guidance, if it does not end the discussion.

The case involved a former U.S. Navy sailor who testified to exposure to original asbestos-containing gaskets and packing used with two pumps found on the virtually new USS Downes.  Even while accepting that evidence as accurate, Judge Robreno granted the MSJ by determining this was a “mere minimal exposure” as described in Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F. 3d 488 at 492. Judge Robreno stated:

Although there is evidence that Plaintiff was exposed to respirable dust from the original gasket and packing used with a single Buffalo electric fire pump, and the original gasket used with a single Buffalo evaporator pump —-, maritime law requires more than a “mere minimal exposure” to support a finding of causation. (Citation omitted.)  As such, no reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured and/or supplied by Defendant such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness.

Other courts have likewise relied upon Lindstrom to reject claims that minimal exposures constituted a substantial factor.  The Sixth Circuit expressed the sentiment memorably in Moeller v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, 660 F.3d 950 at 955 (6th Cir. 2011):

On the basis of the record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was a substantial cause of [plaintiff’s] mesothelioma would be akin to saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has substantially contributed to the ocean’s volume.

From a defense prospective, this order from Judge Robreno compares favorably with other attempts to define a substantial factor.  In California, for example, we must deal with the language of Jones v. John Crane, Inc., 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 144 (2005).  In Jones, John Crane argued that the exposures attributable to its products were comparable to ambient levels of asbestos in the community at large, and paled in comparison to the plaintiffs’ other exposures (10 fiber hours, or .005 fiber years, compared to an estimated 200 fiber years of exposure to asbestos-containing insulation and 2.8 fiber years from ambient exposures). Plaintiff experts challenged the defense calculations and offered expert testimony that every exposure contributed to the risk.  The court ruled against the defense: “[A] level of exposure that is the equivalent of that to which one might be exposed in the ambient air over a lifetime is not necessarily insignificant.”

While the order from Judge Robreno gives us at least one example of what does not constitute a substantial factor, it provides scant guidance as to how to assess future cases.  Nevertheless, at least when maritime law is applied, it is reassuring to know that there are some acknowledged exposure scenarios that do not qualify as substantial factors.

Texas Supreme Court Reaffirms Standard of Proof in Mesothelioma Cases: Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific

On July 11, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court released an opinion of major importance in Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific — an opinion Gordon & Rees partner William A. Ruskin recently commented on in a Law360 article.  The court’s decision reaffirmed the bedrock significance of the concept of dose in toxic tort litigation and rejected out of hand the argument that a less rigorous standard should be applied in a mesothelioma case than in an asbestosis case.  Bostic articulated that plaintiffs must prove substantial factor causation in all toxic tort litigation in general and in asbestos litigation in particular.

ETT BLOG_texasTimothy Bostic’s relatives sued Georgia-Pacific and 39 other asbestos-related product manufacturers claiming that Bostic’s fatal mesothelioma was caused by exposure to their products.  At trial in 2006, the jury allocated 25 percent of the causation to Knox Glass Co., the decedent’s former employer, and 75 percent to Georgia-Pacific. An amended judgment awarded plaintiffs over $11 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s asbestos was a substantial factor in bringing about Bostic’s death.
In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court held that the substantial factor causation standard applies to all asbestos cases involving multiple sources of exposure. To meet this standard, proof of “some exposure” or “any exposure” did not suffice to establish causation.  Instead, there must be defendant-specific evidence relating to the approximate dose to which the plaintiff was exposed, along with evidence that the dose was a substantial factor in causing the asbestos-related disease.

Bostic elaborates upon the Texas Supreme Court’s prior decision in Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, an asbestosis case. Flores addressed the issue of why the plaintiff’s causation evidence was legally insufficient in the absence of evidence of how much asbestos the plaintiff might have inhaled. Flores explained that proof of frequency, regularity, and proximity to a toxic substance alone is not sufficient to support causation, because it does not demonstrate that the defendant-specific dose was a substantial factor in causing the disease. Bostic expressly rejected the plaintiffs’ attempted distinction between a mesothelioma case and an asbestosis case. Rather, the court held the “framework for reviewing the legal sufficiency of causation evidence lends itself to both types of cases.”

Fundamentally, a plaintiff must show that the defendant supplied the product that caused the injury. Hence, the court viewed plaintiff’s “any exposure” theory as “illogical,” in part because it does not take into account a background dose of exposure.  In asbestos-related cancer cases, plaintiffs are not required to show that specific fibers from a defendant’s products were the ones that actually caused the asbestos-related cancer. Instead, it must be shown that exposure to a defendant’s product was a substantial factor in contributing to the total dose of asbestos the plaintiff inhaled, and therefore to the risk of developing asbestos-related disease.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court, however, stating that the plaintiffs do not have to meet the heightened standard of “but-for” causation. Although the court recognized that “producing cause” or “but-for” is the level of causation applicable to most products liability cases, it was unwilling to apply that standard in a case with 40 defendants.

Acknowledging that causation is difficult to prove in multidefendant cases, the court referenced its prior holding in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997), which offers an alternative method for establishing causation in the absence of direct proof. Havner recognized the possibility of using epidemiological studies to prove a population exposed to a toxin faces the increased risk of injury as compared to an unexposed or general population. Under Havner, the epidemiological evidence must show that the plaintiff’s exposure to the defendant’s product more than doubled the plaintiff’s risk of contracting the disease.

In essence, the Texas Supreme Court found the causation evidence in Bostic to be legally insufficient to uphold the trial verdict. The plaintiffs did not establish any approximation of dose resulting from Bostic’s exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s products. Bostic rejected the plaintiffs’ “any exposure” standard and instead reaffirmed adherence to substantial factor causation.

Alexana Gaspari is a law clerk in Gordon & Rees’s New York office.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ray Bodden