MDL Asbestos Judge Holds Navy Ship Not A “Product” Under Strict Liability Law

By on October 18, 2012

Guest bloggers David M. Governo and Corey M. Dennis are attorneys at Governo Law Firm in Boston, where they focus on the defense of toxic tort, product liability, environmental, and insurance coverage claims. Mr. Governo is the immediate past Chairman of the Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Section of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel (FDCC).

Earlier this month, Judge Robreno of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who presides over the federal Asbestos Products Liability Litigation consolidated Multidistrict Litigation docket (MDL 875), considered an issue of first impression under maritime law in Mack v. General Electric Company, MDL-875, No. 2:10-78940-ER, 2012 WL 4717918 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2012): whether a Navy ship is a “product” under strict product liability law.

The defendants were Navy ship builders—General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, and Todd Pacific Shipyards—who moved for summary judgment on the ground that a Navy ship is not a product for which strict product liability applies and that the sophisticated user defense relieved them of liability. Judge Robreno agreed that a Navy ship is not a “product” for purposes of strict product liability law, reasoning that: (1) the role of a Navy ship builder is “more like a provider of a service” than “a manufacturer or supplier of a product”; and (2) imposing liability on a Navy shipbuilder for thousands of products would be an undue burden likely to discourage shipbuilding. He concluded, therefore, that the manufacturers of the various asbestos-containing products aboard the ships, rather than the ship builders, should “bear the burden of preventing harm” to Navy seamen.

Judge Robreno also adopted the “sophisticated user” defense under maritime law, which relieves a product manufacturer of its duty to warn end users who are “sophisticated” regarding the hazards of the product by virtue of their training, education, or employment. However, he rejected the defendants’ argument that the Navy’s sophistication regarding asbestos discharged their duty to warn the plaintiff, finding that the lack of evidence of the seaman plaintiff’s sophistication was fatal to the defense.

Judge Robreno limited the applicability of the sophisticated user defense under maritime law, concluding that the defense only applies: (1) to negligent failure to warn claims; and (2) where the end user himself (e.g., Navy seaman) was a sophisticated user of the product. As a result, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted as to the plaintiff’s strict liability claims, but denied as to the plaintiff’s negligent failure to warn claims.

While not binding precedent, the Mack decision represents persuasive authority that Navy ship builders may rely on to establish that they should not be held liable, at least under strict liability, for Navy ships. However, Judge Robreno’s ruling on the sophisticated user defense, the applicability of which varies greatly by jurisdiction, is less helpful for defendants. Although he adopted the sophisticated user defense under maritime law, under his interpretation, the sophisticated user defense is very limited.

 This ruling is at odds with the laws of some states, including Massachusetts. See Carrel v. Nat’l Cord & Braid Corp., 447 Mass. 431, 441 (2006) (adopting sophisticated user doctrine as a defense to claims of negligent failure to warn and failure to warn under breach of warranty, as pertaining to end users or intermediaries); Taylor v. Am. Chemistry Council, 576 F.3d 16, 25 (1st Cir. 2009) (explaining sophisticated user defense applies to end users or intermediate parties, such as employers).
 

Filed under Asbestos, Governo Law Firm, Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno, Mack v. General Electric Company, MDL-875, sophisticated user defense, strict product liability, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with

Toxic Tort Plaintiff’s Feet Held To Fire On Causation Evidence In New York

By on October 18, 2012

New York’s appellate courts continue to hold toxic tort plaintiffs and their experts to rigorous standards when it comes to proof of causation. To escape an adverse summary judgment ruling, it is not enough for a plaintiff to merely allege, with the support of an expert, that she was exposed to a toxic substance, and that this exposure resulted in the illness alleged. Rather, the plaintiff must raise a triable issue of fact as to her “exposure to a specific toxin or allergen; quantify the level of exposure to some degree; and posit that such level of exposure was sufficient to produce the alleged injuries.” Such was the holding of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Cleghorne v. City of New York, (2012 NY Slip Op 06648), decided on October 4, 2012.

Cleghorne was a school teacher employed by the New York City Board of Education. She claims that after her school was relocated to the Bronx in 2000, she developed respiratory problems while cleaning her classroom at the new location. Thereafter, she was diagnosed with asthma and bronchitis. After returning to work about a month later, she had an asthma attack at the school and was hospitalized. At her General Municipal Law § 50-h examination in September 2001, Cleghorne testified that she developed a persistent cough while cleaning her classroom and a storage area in the new building and that afterward her condition deteriorated. In October 2001, she commenced an action against the Board of Education and others.

In 2010, both sides moved for summary judgment. Each side presented their own experts’ medical affidavits. The defendants’ physician, Jack J. Adler, a pulmonologist, determined that plaintiff had developed asthma prior to moving to the new school location. Adler opined that the environmental contaminants at the school did not cause the condition. He reported that plaintiff suffered from atopic or allergic asthma and that she was allergic to several common allergens, including tree and ragweed pollen, dust mites, dogs, cats, cockroaches, mold, spores and mouse and rat antigens, none of which were exclusive to her school. Because these environmental contaminants are extremely prevalent, Dr. Adler opined that she would have similar symptoms in any urban environment.

Cleghorne stated in her affidavit (which the court noted was executed more than nine years after the relevant events) that the school premises “were replete with rodents, rodent carcases, rodent droppings, cobwebs, cockroaches, cockroach and other bug carcasses, mildew, thick-black dust, and excessive dirt, and had numerous ceiling tiles that were water damaged and broken.” In addition, mold was in the ceiling tiles by the vents, on the walls, and in the closets. Her daily routine was to clean out all of this material before starting class. Cleghorne had her worried validated by basement waterproofing contractors from her neighborhood in Maryland.

Based upon Cleghorne’s affidavit, her expert, Dr. Hugh Cassiere, opined that Cleghorne was exposed to a “high level” of daily inhalation of these allergens, which caused her to develop “airway hyperresponsiveness.” Faced with two sets of dueling summary judgment motions, the trial court determined that questions of fact required the denial of both motions.

In its opinion, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed, holding that the trial court should have dismissed plaintiff’s case. Relying on the Court of Appeals landmark case, Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., the First Department held that Cleghorne had failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the specific toxin or allergen; that she had failed to quantify the level of exposure; and that she had failed to posit (through her expert) that such level of exposure was sufficient to produce the alleged injury.

In pertinent part, the Court held,

“While Parker recognizes that the level of exposure need not always be quantified “precisely,” it is still necessary that “whatever methods an expert uses to establish causation [they be] generally accepted in the [medical] community”… such methods include “mathematical modeling or comparing plaintiff’s exposure level to those of study subjects whose exposure levels were precisely determined.”

In Cleghorne, the court found that the only so-called “method” plaintiff’s expert used to establish specific causation was to “accept, at face value, the anecdotal allegations of plaintiff’s uncorroborated affidavit that she was exposes to dust, bugs, rodent droppings and carcases in unspecified quantities and began experiencing asthma, purportedly for the first time, as a result.”
Although plaintiff’s expert characterized  Cleghorne’s exposure as “high level,” the Court found that this assessment was an insufficient basis for his causation theory and that plaintiff’s use of the term “replete” in her affidavit was a “meaningless and vague quantifying adjective.”

Significantly, the court held that an expert’s calculation of the level of exposure may not be based upon assumptions not supported by the record and faulted the plaintiff’s expert for not providing any scientific measurement or employing any accepted method of extrapolating such a measurement. Moreover, plaintiff offered no other evidence concerning the “level of allergens or toxins present in the school.” Although Dr. Cassiere did cite six studies in support of his theory of causation, he failed to compare plaintiff’s exposure level to those of any of the study subjects.

What lessons does Cleghorne provide?

1. Although New York state trial courts are generally reluctant to dismiss the personal injury claim of a sympathetic plaintiff, there is strong precedent in the appellate courts that favors dismissal of toxic tort lawsuits without appropriate scientific support. Therefore, making a strong appellate record below, either on summary judgment or at trial, is essential for achieving a successful outcome;

2. Although some commentators are critical of the Frye rule in New York state court (preferring instead the federal Daubert rule), New York has developed some rigorous Frye jurisprudence. Therefore, all is not lost if you are in New York state court and seek to exclude plaintiff’s expert;

3. A rigorous analysis of plaintiff’s expert’s opinions, expressed either in his affidavit or CPLR 3101(d) expert witness disclosure, is essential. As reflected in Cleghorne, plaintiff’s expert must be able to quantify the level of exposure albeit not “precisely.” However, plaintiff’s methodology must include “mathematical modeling” or, alternatively, a comparison of plaintiff’s exposure level to the exposure level of study subjects in the scientific studies cited by the expert in support of his theory of causation. It is not sufficient to use words like “replete” or “daily” in quantifying an exposure to a toxin or allergen; and

4. The trial court should be cautioned that, in opposing a motion for summary judgment, it is not sufficient for plaintiff’s expert to rely solely on plaintiff’s “anecdotal” remarks seeking to link cause and injury.

Filed under Appellate Division, First Department, Asbestos, Cleghorne v. City of New York, Frye, Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp, proof of causation, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with ,

Breach Of Warranty & Product Liability Claims Dismissed Against Auto Service Provider

By on April 16, 2012

In 2008, the parents of Sean Reeps, brought suit against BMW, Martin Motor Sales and Hassel Motors (“Hassel”), alleging that Sean’s mother, Debra, was exposed to gasoline fumes in the family’s BMW during her pregancy, which resulted in Sean being born with birth defects. Amarillo motor vehicle accident attorney will work with you in all types of vehicle accidents like Sean’s mother. The Complaint alleged causes of action in (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) breach of express warranty; and (4) breach of implied warranty (merchantability) . The timeline of events is as follows:

1991-In March and again in November, Reeps bring their 1989 BMW 525i to Hassel Motors, a licensed BMW dealer, to fix an exhaust odor inside the car.  Dealer fails to identiify an exhaust odor in March, but later identifies problem as a split fuel hose and repairs it under warranty.

1992-In May, Sean Reeps is born with birth defects, including cerebral palsy, which plaintiffs  attribute to Debra’s  inhalation of gas fumes early in pregnancy.

1994-BMW recalls BMW525i vehicles due to safety defect that caused odor due to feed fuel hose. Car is no longer with plaintiffs at the time.

On summary judgment, BMW argued that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of spoliation because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case without the car or the fuel hose to show the actual alleged defect.  BMW’s expert testified by affidavit that the Reeps’ leakage was caused by a split in the fuel hose, not by the defect that was the subject of the recall.  Thus, in the absence of the actual fuel hose, BMW argued, plaintiff could not demonstrate a defect.

The trial court rejected BMW’s spoliation argument, holding that there was no evidence of “willful or contumacious conduct” by plaintiff in disposing of the car. Remarkably, the Reeps’ BMW was actually found, but clearly not in the same condition as it was in 1991 and, not surprisingly, without the original fuel hose. The trial court held that plaintiff was not “barred from pursuing his claim, but rather he will have the onerous trial burden of proving his case solely by circumstantial evidence.”

New York law requires that to establish a prima facie case for strict product liability or design defect, a plaintiff must show that the manufacturer marketed a product that was not reasonably safe in its design; that it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner; and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury. When the product at issue is no longer available, and the plaintiff seeks to prove a manufacturing defect by circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff must not only establish that the product did not perform as intended, but must also exclude all other causes of failure not attributable to the manufacturer.

The trial court denied Hassel’s motion for summary judgment. The gravamen for plaintiff’s claims against Hassel was that it was negligent in failing to find the split fuel hose when the Reeps first complained of fuel odor in March 1991. Plaintiffs argued that if Hassel had identified and repaired the problem, Mrs. Reeps would not have inhaled any fumes during her pregnancy. In denying the dealer’s motion for summary judgment, the court observed that there is a high bar for obtaining summary judgment in a negligence action. As the court noted, “Simply put, Hassel must prove that it was not negligent when it failed to find a source of the gas fumes complained of by the Reeps in March 1991. It has not done so.”

In its decision, dated April 5, 2012, the Appellate Division, First Department, weighed in on both the spoliation issue and the motion for summary judgment by Hassel. On the spoliation issue, the Appellate Division held that the defendants “failed to demonstrate that the parents disposed of the vehicle with knowledge of its potential evidentiary value.” Moreover, the court discussed the existence of other available evidence, including BMW’s Recall Bulletin and Hassel Motors-service records for the relevant period, which served to mitigate the loss of the vehicle. Basically, the court examined two of the key factors in evaluating spoliation sanctions – prejudice and intent – and determined that the movants had failed to establish either element in seeking sanctions.

As to plaintiff’s claims against Hassel, the Appellate Division held that the product liability and breach of implied and express warranty claims should be dismissed because the service provider did not design, manufacture, distribute or sell the vehicle. This holding may be the most important in the case because it clarifies that service providers, as opposed to product sellers, can not be held liable under strict product liability or breach of warranty theories of liability. Therefore, the only remaining claim against Hassel sounds in negligence, which may be difficult for plaintiff to establish at trial after a twenty year hiatus.

Apart from its other burdens, plaintiff will have to demonstrate general causation at trial, that is, whether exposure to chemical components in gasoline fumes have been associated in the scientific literature with the specific teratogenic effects alleged, including cerebral palsy. If plaintiff is able to prove general causation, he will then have to prove specific causation, that is, whether the dose of the purported teratogen was high enough, and lasted for a sufficient duration, to cause the specific birth defect.

The plaintiff attributes his injury to Debra Reeps’ inhalation of gas fumes during the first couple of months of her pregnancy between August 1991 and November 1991, when the problem with the vehicle was fixed. Are the alleged teratogenic effects associated with a toxic exposure early in pregnancy? How often did Debra Reeps ride in the automobile during those first couple of months? If the odor problem was significant, is it likely that the Reeps would not have returned their BMW 525i, which was under warranty, to the dealership before November? Because there is no expert deposition discovery under New York state practice, we will have to await trial to learn how these issues plays out.
 

 

Filed under Appellate Division, First Department, Breach Of Warranty, Causation, Sean Repps v. BMW of North America, Inc, Spoliation, Strict Liability, Theories of Liability, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with , ,

Tort Litigation & OSHA

By on April 13, 2012

OSHA standards can significantly affect litigants in work-related tort litigation.  Plaintiffs generally attempt (with mixed success)  to use evidence of OSHA regulations to establish the duty owed by the defendants in those cases.  Courts around the country differ considerably on the admissibility of OSHA standards in personal injury cases to establish a standard of care.

 Similarly, there is no unanimity concerning whether to allow evidence of OSHA violations in tort cases.  Should an OSHA violation be construed  as "some evidence" of negligence, "per se" evidence of negligence or not admissible at all?  Although the answer depends largely on the law of the jurisdiction in which you are litigating, one thing is crystal clear–OSHA violations relevant to the tort litigation can have a big effect on the defense of the case and the litigation impact of any underlying OSHA issues must be fully analyzed. 

Therefore, I owe a debt of gratitude to  Eric Conn, who launched The OSHA Law Update: A Hazard Communication, and who keeps me well-informed concerning what I should be sensitive to in this regulatory arena.  Eric and co-authors Amanda Strainis-Walker, Casey Cosentino, Alexis Downs and Paul Burmeister have hands-on OSHA experience at both the federal and state level and service a diverse range of industries including chemical facilities, petroleum refining, manufacturing, construction, natural gas and electrical power, health care and life sciences, and the  agricultural, retail, and hospitality sectors.  Their blog provides industry with what they need to know before OSHA knocks on the front door.  

Filed under Alexis Downs, Amanda Strainis-Walker, Casey Cosentino, EBG, Epstein Becker & Green, Eric Conn, Negligence Per Se, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Paul Burmeister, Some Evidence of Negligence, The OSHA Law Update: A Hazard Communication, Tort Litigation, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with

Challenging Plaintiff’s Proof of Reasonable Alternative Design

By on March 6, 2012

In the majority of jurisdictions, to establish a claim for design defect in a product liability action, the plaintiff must present some proof of a “feasible alternative design” or “reasonable alternative design.” 

In an article published in the IADC Product Liability Committee Newsletter (February 2012), "No Other Alternative: Challenging Plaintiff’s Proof of Reasonable Alternative Design",  Elbert S. Dorn, a partner at Nexen Pruet, LLC, in South Carolina, provides valuable tips to the defense practitioner concerning how to agressively press legal and factual points to test plaintiff’s proof of reasonable alternative design.   

According to Dorn, legal arguments on reasonable alternative design should be included in Daubert or other motions to exclude or limit the plaintiff’s expert testimony, motions for summary judgment, motions in limine to challenge evidence of proposed design alternatives, and in oral and written motions for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff’s case, at the completion of the defense case, and after any adverse verdict. Additionally, the defense position on reasonable alternative design should be articulated clearly in proposed requests to charge (or jury instructions).

In challenging plaintiff’s proof or evidence of a reasonable alternative design, the following factors and issues should be considered:

• whether the reasonable alternative design is being presented through expert testimony, and, if so, is the expert qualified to present reliable evidence of a design alternative?

• Is the design merely conceptual or theoretical in nature?

• Has the design been reduced to scale drawings fully illustrating its dimensions, characteristics and mechanics?

• The existence of a prototype or model demonstrating or incorporating the proposed design.

• Is the alternative design subject to a U.S. or foreign patent – has the proponent or anyone else sought patent protection?

• Has the alternative design been the subject of peer-reviewed articles or treatises or otherwise reviewed in the scientific community?

• Has the proposed design ever been incorporated or utilized by another manufacturer in a real-world setting – while not a totally decisive factor, it is powerful to establish that which plaintiff proposes as an alternative design has never before been utilized in the particular industry.

• Has the proposed design been subjected to testing to measure its effectiveness, functionality, and performance?

• What is the effect of the reasonable alternative design on the utility and functionality of the product – does the proposed design compromise or diminish the utility of the product – this is an overarching issue and should be fully explored.

• What analysis has been performed of the adverse or increased safety risks of the alternative design – does it potentially affect the relative safety of other components or the overall safety of the product?

• What cost analysis or economic impact of the alternative has been performed?

• What analysis or testing supports the durability of the proposed alternative – will it require additional maintenance and repair or affect product longevity?

• The effect of the alternative design on compliance with governmental regulations and standards.

• Would the alternative design have prevented the specific harm or injury which is the subject of the case?

• Was the technology supporting the alternative design readily available to the manufacturer at the time the subject product was designed or manufactured? 

Fundamentally, the defense against plaintiff’s argument that there existed a reasonable  alternative designr resonates with a basic human emotion – “don’t criticize the way I do things unless you can do it better” or “do not criticize my play-calling and execution, if you have never played the game.”  If this notion can be conveyed to judge and jury, all the better in establishing the defense to plaintiff’s contentions. 

Filed under challenging plaintiff, Design Defect, Elbert S. Dorn, feasible alternative design, IADC, Nexsen Pruet, LLC, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with ,

Excluding Chemical Risk Assessment Evidence From the Courtroom

By on February 7, 2012

When governmental or quasi-governmental agencies formulate a chemical risk assessment, it is part of their legitimate exercise of public health, policy-oriented regulation.  Regulators often develop risk assessments due to scientific uncertainty concerning the toxicity of a particular compound and utilize conservative risk models in the interest of protecting public health and the environment.  Thus, when a substance is labeled “possibly carcinogenic” or even “probably carcinogenic” by an agency, it may have little or no bearing on general and specific causation issues.

For this reason, risk assessments, and the assumptions that go into making them, have no legitimate place in toxic tort litigation.  Agency classifications and risk assessment certainly cannot legitimately be used by a toxic tort plaintiff to help establish his case-in-chief.  Agency classification and risk assessments are based upon standards that very significantly from the burdens of proof in a courtroom.  Thus, they are not legally relevant and pose a significant risk of confusion to jurors and prejudice to defendants. 

In a compelling article appearing in the Bloomberg BNA Toxics Law Reporter (February 3, 2012) titled, “When ‘Likely’ Does Not Mean ‘More Likely Than Not’: The Dangers of Allowing Government Chemical Classifications and Numeric Risk Assessments at Trial,” Mark P. Fitzsimmons and Leah M. Quadrino at Steptoe and Johnson, and Sneha Desai at BASF, describe how governmental agencies perform risk assessments and how the assumptions employed in reaching these risk assessments can easily mislead lay persons serving on juries in assuming that particular chemicals are carcinogenic to humans when, in fact, they may not be. 

Frequently, plaintiffs seek to introduce as evidence general and specific causation and increased risk.  The authors observe that the critical distinction between a regulatory classification of a chemical and the burden of proof required in court has been widely litigated.  Thus, in Gates v. Rohm and Haas Co., No. 10-108, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17756, *33 (3d Cir. Aug. 25, 2011), the Third Circuit held that, “plaintiffs could not carry their burden of proof for a class of specific persons simply by citing regulatory standards for the population as a whole.” 

Similarly, other courts have excluded expert testimony for relying on regulatory ratings or standards in determining whether a plaintiff’s exposure to a substance above regulatory limits was sufficient to establish causation.  Baker v. Chevron USA Inc., 680 F.Supp. 2d. 865, 880 (S.D. Ohio 2010).  Defense counsel also must be vigilant against a court’s use of numeric risk assessment as a benchmark for determining increased risk.  The takeaway is that “probably” in a regulatory context does not mean “more probable than not” in a tort context.

Filed under Agency Classification, BASF, Increased Risk, possibly carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, Steptoe & Johnson, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with

No Causal Link On Cell Phone Cancer Risk

By on June 10, 2011

Consumer Reports, among others, reported this week that the International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC"), which is part of the World Health Organization ("WHO"), has classified low-level radiation from cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" based on limited evidence linking cell phone use to glioma, a type of brain cancer.  Although Consumer Reports concluded in its article that IARC’s action was based on "limited evidence" and doesn’t "convincingly" link typical cell phone use with cancer, an American public that often skims only headlines of articles, may be susceptible to appeals of sympathy by plaintiff lawyers representing long-time cell phone users with brain cancers.  Throughout the 1980’s the utility industry battled spurious claims, premised upon junk science, that electromagnetic field radiation was responsible for "cancer clusters" of child leukemias and other dreaded diseases.  Although virtually every major EMF toxic tort claim was successfully defended by industry over a period of years, tens of millions of dollars was spent defending these lawsuits, which were brought in courts all  across the country.  As in the case of low dose radiation from cell phone use, there were  millions of millions of potential plaintiffs in the EMF cases and all of the prospective utility industry defendants had deep pockets. Following issuance of the IARC release, a spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") stated that FCC currently requires that all cell phones meet safety standards based upon the advice of federal health and safety agencies.  Moreover, according to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Program ("SEER"), the incidence of brain cancer in the United States has actually declined over recent years as cell phone use has skyrocketed.  Despite these reassuring pronouncements, well-heeled plaintiff lawyers may bring some cases as trial balloons to test industry resolve based upon other equally ambiguous pronouncements, such as the contention that cell phone use can affect "brain function".  As in the cases brought against chemical manufacturers in the 1980’s,  which alleged that chemicals cause generic  "immune system dysfunction", enterprising plaintiffs may attribute any number of injuries to purported "brain function" impacts.  Hopefully, courts will continue to exercise their gatekeeper roles to maintain some semblance of scientific rigor in the courtroom to exclude inconclusive science  if these cases are brought. 

Filed under brain cancer, cell phones, Contaminants & Toxins, Federal Communications Commission, Industries, International Agency for Cancer Research, Litigation Issues and Factors, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with

Court Rejects Toxic Telephone Pole Lawsuit

By on May 23, 2011

On November 6, 2009, we reported here concernining a case of first impression brought by the Ecological Rights Foundation (“ERF”) in federal court in California.  In her decision, dated March 31, 2011, the Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong, sitting in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland Division), dismissed ERF’s  environmental claims brought  against Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) and Pacific Bell Telephone (“Pacific Bell”).  The Ecological Rights Foundation alleged that the Defendants’ wooden utility and telephone poles were pressure treated with an oil-based pentachlorophenol preservative which was “oozing” to the surface and being washed off of the Poles, thereby contaminating San Francisco Bay and adjacent waterways.  As a result of the migration of this material over time from the Poles into the soils, ERF alleged that “dioxin-like” compounds were released into the environment placing surrounding homeowners, commercial fisherman and the general public at significant risk.  As a practical matter, if ERF had prevailed, PG&E and Pacific Bell may have had to replace tens of thousands of Poles throughout California.

In dismissing the case, which was brought pursuant to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Court examined the required showings under each statute.  The CWA distinguishes between point and nonpoint sources.  A point source is defined in the statute as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.”  All other sources of pollution are characterized as “nonpoint sources.”  To succeed, ERF had to demonstrate that the Defendants’ discharges were point source discharges., looking for an attorney ? here is a speeding ticket defense that you can count on at any time.

In dismissing the CWA claim, the Court held that “point and nonpoint sources are not distinguished by the kind of pollution they create or by activity causing the pollution, but rather by whether the pollution reaches the water through a confined, discrete conveyance.”

The key issue in the analysis of ERF’s RCRA claim was whether the chemical preservatives used on the Poles qualified as a “solid waste” within the meaning of RCRA.  The term “solid waste” is statutorily defined as “discarded material.”  Although not defined by statute, EPA regulations specify that “discarded material” includes any material that is “abandoned.”  ERF alleged that solid waste was disposed of into the environment when the chemical preservative leaked, spilled or dripped from the Poles due to rain, and when dust impregnated with the chemical is blown into the air during dry seasons.  In dismissing the RCRA claim, the Court held that the “flaw in plaintiff’s theory of disposal is that in this case, there is no allegation that Defendants engaged in any conduct that resulted in the discharge of the chemical preservative. To the contrary, Plaintiff merely alleges that the purported contamination is the result of natural forces – mainly, rain and wind… Such allegations, on their face, are insufficient to establish that Defendants engaged in the ‘disposal’ of hazardous waste under § 6972(a)(1)(B).”  The Court rejected Plaintiff’s theory that the “passive” spilling or leaking of materials from a place of containment into the environment constitutes “disposal” of solid waste.  In so holding, the Court distinguished prior cases that found that leakage fromgasoline USTs may be actionable under RCRA.  The UST holdings are only applicable to situations where the discharge of hazardous waste leaked or spilled from a container intended to hold the waste.  In contrast, the Court found that “the Poles are not containers; but rather, they were used to suspend wires for the transmission of electricity for PG&E and data for Pacific Bell.”  Thus, liability under RCRA ¶ 7002 did not attach based on the “discharge” of chemical preservatives from the Poles attributable to natural forces, such as rain and wind.

Filed under Bell', Clean Water Act, Contaminants & Toxins, dioxin, Litigation Issues and Factors, Penta, Pentachlorophenol, PG&E, Public Utilities, RCRA, telephone poles, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with

California’s Take On Mold Claims, Expert Testimony, And The Two-Part General And Specific Causation Test

By on March 15, 2010

Guest Blogger M.C. Sungaila  is a partner in the appellate law firm of Horvitz & Levy in Los Angeles. Her appellate work has helped shape toxic tort law in California, including the scope of the duty to warn sophisticated users of product hazards and the guidelines for admitting expert testimony at trial.

Toxic Tort Litigation Blog’s post earlier this year about a Michigan appellate court’s affirmance of an award to residents of a home overrun with mold – without any expert testimony to prove causation – raises the question: what would happen to such a claim in a more famously liberal state like California? In this instance at least, California seems more likely to come to a more ‘conservative’ conclusion than Michigan.

 

Expert Testimony

 

California not only requires expert testimony for complex causation questions; it tests the foundation for that testimony and requires trial courts to exclude expert opinions that are unsupported. See an early article describing the development of these standards by M.C. Sungaila and David M. Axelrad published in California Lawyer. The California courts of appeal have specifically considered the admissibility of expert testimony in mold cases and ruled in favor of the defendants. Most recently, in Dee v. PCS Property Management, one of the appellate divisions in Los Angeles confirmed the trial court’s ability to exclude unfounded expert testimony in a residential mold case. Darcee Dee lived in an apartment for slightly over four months. She sued her landlord and property management company for alleged physical injuries, as well as fear of cancer, from living in an apartment that purportedly had toxic mold in it. After hearing the plaintiff’s experts testify over several days concerning their opinions and the foundation for them, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions in limine to exclude most of the experts’ testimony based on a lack of foundation. The remaining portions of Dee’s claims were tried to a jury, and the jury rejected her claims. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in Dee, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding plaintiff’s experts for lack of an adequate foundation.  Each of Dee’s experts sought to testify that her exposure to mold mycotoxins caused her symptoms and her susceptibility to cancer, without any evidence that she was exposed to potentially harmful mycotoxins at her residence. The court relied on the decision in another mold case, Geffcken v. D’Andrea,  and distinguished its own prior decision in Roberti v. Andy’s Termite, the only published opinion to have rejected the trial court’s authority under the California Evidence Code to thoroughly analyze the foundation for expert testimony in order to determine its admissibility.  For another take on the Geffcken and Dee mold decisions, see an article on the Kring & Chung LLP website.

 

Toxic Tort Causation Standards

 

While California appellate courts would be certain to require expert testimony on causation, it is not as clear how they would analyze causation in a toxic tort case.  In toxic tort cases, a plaintiff must generally prove not only that a chemical or substance can cause a particular adverse health effect but also that it did cause the harm to the plaintiff.  Proof of causation therefore necessarily includes a threshold determination whether, as a matter of reasonable medical probability, a particular chemical is capable of causing in humans the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff (i.e., “general causation”). If the answer is that the chemical does not possess that capacity, then the chemical cannot have been a cause of plaintiff’s harm. But if the chemical does have that capacity, then the causation inquiry (in jurisdictions like California which apply a substantial factor causation standard) becomes whether the plaintiff’s exposure to the chemical in question was as a matter of reasonable medical probability a substantial factor in causing the particular plaintiff’s harm (i.e., “specific causation”).   For a helpful analysis of causation in toxic tort cases, see the excellent discussion by David E. Bernstein, a Professor at the George Mason University School of Law, in an article  titled "Getting to Causation in Toxic Tort Cases".  This two-step general and specific causation framework is almost universally accepted by federal courts analyzing toxic tort causation (including the Ninth Circuit, see, e.g., Golden v. CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008) 528 F.3d 681, 683).  Trial courts in California have analyzed proof of causation in toxic tort cases along general and specific causation lines as well. California appellate courts have not, however, expressly adopted the general and specific causation distinction in a published decision. This has led to some confusion, as plaintiffs have attempted to convince courts that such a “two-part”causation test is incompatible with California’s prevailing causation standards.  In Dee v. PCS Property Management, the plaintiff raised this argument on appeal, but the Court of Appeal declined to reach it because the jury had found no negligence, which made an argument about causation standards “irrelevant.” An opportunity to address the general and specific causation distinctions head-on may come later this year, however, when the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles is likely to hear argument in and decide the plaintiffs’ appeal of summary judgment in a high-profile benzene exposure case brought by former students at Beverly Hills High. The appellate docket for the case, Lee v. Venoco, is attached here. The original summary judgment decision ruled on the admissibility of expert opinion on both general causation and specific causation.

Filed under benzene exposure, Beverly Hills High School, California, David E. Bernstein, Dee v. PCS Property Management, Geffcken v. D, Horvitz & Levy, Kring & Chung LLC, M.C. Sungaila, Mold, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with

Louisiana Appeals Court Rejects NORM Class Action

By on March 9, 2010

On January 28, 2010, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the New Orleans  trial court’s denial of class certification in a series of putative class actions involving alleged exposure to Normally Occurring Radioactive Material (“NORM”) on industrial property located in , Louisiana, which had been used for oilfield pipe and equipment cleaning operations for over forty years. Although class certification was rejected on multiple grounds, the decision relied in large part upon the Louisiana Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ford v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 703 S.2d 542, which involved alleged exposures from hazardous materials from several distinct sources. As in Ford, the class action failed because the Harvey plaintiffs alleged toxic exposures as a result of pipe cleaning activity on the non-contiguous property of three separate and distinct landowners – Rathborne, Grefer and ITCO – over a forty-six year period, with varying amounts of pipe cleaning taking place at different times in different locations (in almost checkerboard pattern) by different companies. Ford stands for the proposition that only mass torts arising from a single common cause or disaster are appropriate for class certification.

How did pipe cleaning cause the alleged NORM exposure? Pipe cleaning involves the mechanical reaming of the inside of oilfield pipe to remove scale or crust that builds up on the interior of the tubing to the point where the scale impedes the flow of oil up the pipe. The scale, formed from natural elements, gradually clogs the pipes that are inserted deep into the ground during the course of petroleum production. At some point, it was determined that the scale inside the pipe contained material determined to be radioactive, with varying half-lives (time for half of the atoms of a radioactive substance to decay), which is called “NORM” or “TERM,” an acronym referring to Technologically Enhanced Radioactive Material. When precisely the oil industry knew or should have known that pipe cleaning could result in occupational exposure to NORM is hotly disputed. The plaintiffs allege that over the decades this pipe cleaning occurred in Harvey, “toxic dust” (NORM/TERM) was deposited in their neighborhoods and was the source of various diseases and illnesses.

What I find interesting about the Fourth Circuit’s opinion is its rejection of the trial court’s determination that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement of the Louisiana Class Action Statute, which was a primary basis for the trial court’s denial of class certification. The trial court  found that there was not sufficient numerosity because so many potential class members had already opted out, citing other lawsuits in which 3,748 individuals, a large percentage of the putative class, were involved. These so-called opt-outs were represented by several outspoken plaintiff lawyers, who did not want to see a class certified. The Fourth Circuit ruled that it was premature to opt out of a class before it was certified. A plaintiff could not opt out of a class that did not yet exist. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit found that the numerosity requirement had been met. However,  the Fourth Circuit held that sufficient commonality for class certification was not present. In addition, the Fourth Circuit held that the broad diversity of the diseases and ailments of the plaintiffs underscored the inadequacy of the class representatives representation, leading the court to conclude that there was no typicality. The Harvey TERM plaintiffs complained of diseases ranging from common cold symptoms to reproductive problems and many different forms of cancer.  The plaintiffs’ strategy at both the trial court and appellate level was to argue that the court should not be required to conduct a rigorous analysis of whether the facts satisfied the class action requirements.  Plaintiffs argued that the trial court confused a motion to certify a class with a trial on the merits, essentially asserting that it had made too many "factual findings".  However, the Fourth Circuit soundly rejected this argument, citing the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision inBrooks v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2008-2035, *6, 2009 WL 1425972 (La. 05/22/09), which recognized the "essentially factual basis of the certification inquiry and of the district court’s inherent power to manage and control pending litigation."  Brooks, 08-2035 at p. 11, 13 So 3d at 554

Filed under Brooks v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., class, Class Action, Commonality, Ford v. Murphy Oil, Harvey Term, Louisiana, Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, NORM, Normally Occuring Radioactive Material, numerosity, pipe cleaning, Statute', TERM, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation, Typicality Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →