Bare Metal Defense Applied For First Time In Yet Another Jurisdiction: Wyoming

By on October 14, 2015

In an order issued on October 9, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming determined that under Wyoming law, equipment manufacturers can employ the “bare metal defense” against strict liability causes of action. In essence, plaintiffs now cannot argue that defendants are strictly liable for insulation or any replacement parts that they did not provide. However, defendants remain strictly liable for original components, and plaintiffs can argue that defendants were negligent for failing to warn about replacement parts provided by others.

Judge Alan Johnson analyzed in detail the “bare metal defense” and noted this was an issue of first impression for the courts in Wyoming. Although he did not accept defendants’ argument “that a majority of the courts” that have looked at this issue have adopted the defense, Judge Johnson went on to rely upon the Schwartz v. Abex decision by Judge Robreno in 2015 for guidance on how to decide the issue. Doing a similar analysis, Judge Johnson concluded that Wyoming would adopt the bare metal defense, at least in regards to strict liability. He noted that to do otherwise “would allow foreseeability alone to be sufficient to create [a] strict liability claim and impose an almost absolute liability for all manufacturers that sell products with replaceable components.”

Judge Johnson also concluded that under Wyoming law, strict liability and negligence are treated separately and that under a negligence analysis the plaintiffs could still recover if they can demonstrate that:

1. Defendant knew that its product would be used with an asbestos-containing component part,

2. Defendant knew that asbestos was hazardous, and

3. Defendant failed to provide an adequate and reasonable warning.

The order then, however, goes on to say:

Accordingly, the Court finds that it will not grant summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Goulds regarding parts that Goulds manufactured or supplied or those that Goulds did not manufacture or supply but it specified, required or were necessary to the operation of its pumps. (emphasis added).

This final clause seems to add more prerequisites in addition to Nos. 1-3 above, and would certainly allow defendants to make additional arguments responsive to negligence claims. For example, one could argue that none of the equipment “required” asbestos to the extent that the equipment could work with non-asbestos materials. And certainly language in catalogs or sales materials that may be a “requirement” or “specification” in the eyes of plaintiff counsel is likely to be construed differently by defense counsel.

On balance, if this ruling is followed by other courts in Wyoming, it will make plaintiffs’ cases a little harder in Wyoming, but leaves a number of viable causes of action and theories.

Filed under Asbestos, Bare Metal, Negligence, Strict Liability, Wyoming

Student Bitten By Tick: Hotchkiss School On Hook For $41.75 Million

By on April 5, 2013

On March 27, 2013, a jury in federal district court in Bridgeport, Connecticut awarded Cara Munn, a 20-year-old  woman who formerly attended the Hotchkiss School  in Lakeville, Connecticut, $41,750,000 in a case styled Orson D. Munn III et al. v. The Hotchkiss School, No. 3:09cv0919 (SRU).  The case raises important issues concerning “duty” and “assumption of risk”.

The jury determined that Hotchkiss, a prestigious prep school, was negligent for two reasons: (1) in failing to warn plaintiff before or during a school sponsored trip to China during the summer of 2007 about the risk of insect-borne illness on the trip; and (2) in failing to ensure that plaintiff used protective measures to prevent infection by an insect-borne disease while visiting Mt. Pan in China.

In an article appearing in the Connecticut Law Tribune (Vol. 39, No. 13), titled “Tick Bite Leads To Big Verdict“,  it was reported that the school was faulted specifically  for not warning plaintiff (and her parents) that she would be traveling in mountainous and forested terrain. As a result, the jury determined that the plaintiff was not aware that she had to protect herself from insects by wearing bug repellent, long sleeve shirts and trousers, and by avoiding brushy undergrowth.

According to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Ms. Munn’s parents had Cara flown back to the United States in July ’07, where she was hospitalized for several weeks at Weill Cornell Medical Center in the pediatric ICU and later at the Rusk Institute for extensive rehab.  As a result of her severe encephalitis, plaintiff suffered severe neurological and motor injuries, including permanent loss of speech. 

The case, which will almost certainly be appealed, raises significant issues concerning duty and the assumption of personal responsibility by parents who agree to have their child travel abroad for educational purposes. Apart from the obvious differences in food, culture and living conditions, traveling abroad carries many potential risks, some of which are foreseeable and some of which are not. Stepping back from the facts presented by this particularly tragic case, should a high school be held responsible for failing to prevent a student from being bitten by a tick in China? What if the tick had bitten her during a field trip to Central Park?

Assuming that the Second Circuit upholds this verdict, what does this case portend for high schools and colleges that plan educational trips abroad? Is there some bright line test that would provide guidance to a school evaluating the safety concerns of its students? Short of wrapping all of their students in cocoons and keeping them closely monitored in classroom settings, how can any school protect against the kind of unforeseen liability presented by this case?

Hotchkiss’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint states that plaintiffs’ claims should be barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk.  The school argues that plaintiffs voluntarily assumed the risk of travel to China as evidenced by their execution of the pre-trip Agreement, Waiver, and Release of Liability.  In this agreement, plaintiffs agreed that Hotchkiss “would not be responsible for any injury to person or property caused by anything other than its sole negligence or willful misconduct” (emphasis added)   Would legal weight did the court give to this release?

Based upon the Verdict Form presented to the jury, it would appear that the trial court gave short shrift to the language in the release.  The jury was asked the following questions: (1) Was one or more of Hotchkiss’ negligent acts or omissions a cause-in-fact of Cara Munn’s injuries; and (2) Was one or more of Hotchkiss’ negligent acts or omissions a substantial factor, that acting alone or in conjunction with other factors, brought about Cara’s injuries?

Those inquiries are a lot different from asking whether the jury finds that Hotchkiss’ “sole negligence or willful misconduct” caused the injuries.  Although the jury determined that plaintiff did not contribute to any degree whatsoever in causing her injuries, it was not asked to consider whether other intervening factors played any role in causing Cara’s injuries.

There are circumstances when a school can and should be held responsible when things go wrong on a school outing.  Three examples come quickly to mind: (1) sending kids into a war zone despite State Department warnings; (2) sending kids abroad into an epidemic earlier identified by the CDC; or (3) taking non-swimmers for an ocean swim outing without proper supervision.

For students, a lot of professionals and teachers recommend students who are focusing in English in college levels to improve their knowledge about English before going to one. Luckily there are sites online that would help students to improve their skills such widening their pronouns list and advancing their vocabulary. These sites are free and it has helped a lot of students.

How is Munn different from these scenarios?  Is a  random bug bite as foreseeable, if at all, as the kinds of risks discussed in the three scenarios above. According to Hotchkiss’ summary judgment memorandum, the CDC reported that plaintiff was the first U.S. traveler ever to have reported TBE after traveling in China. Moreover, no U.S. traveler since plaintiff has developed the disease.  Therefore, how unreasonable was it for Hotchkiss not to take precautions against a risk of harm that arguably had such a slight likelihood of taking place?  Shouldn’t plaintiffs have had to prove that the defendant was on prior notice of the existence of circumstances that could give rise to an injury?

Plaintiffs’ expert, Peter Tarlow once led a group of children, including his own son, on a  tour of Israel.  If a child on that Israel tour had been unexpectedly assaulted by someone holding anti-Zionist views, would Dr. Tarlow expect to be held responsible for any resultant injury because he was “on notice” of decades of endemic unrest in the region?

Two strong CT trial lawyers squared off against each for this eight day trial–for the plaintiffs, Antonio Ponvert of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, one of the New England plaintiff bar’s preeminent  firms, and for the defendant, Penny Q. Seaman of Wiggin & Dana, one of Connecticut’s oldest and most accomplished firms.  The bar should expect to see excellent post-trial briefing as events unfold.  

Filed under assumption of risk, duty, encephalitis, federal district court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, foreseeability, Hotchkiss, jury award, Munn v. Hotchkiss, Negligence, school sponsored trip to China, school sued over tick bite, tick, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with ,

No Liability for Others’ Asbestos Products

By on January 13, 2012

The Bloomberg BNA Toxics Law Reporter reported this morning concerning an important new decision from the Supreme Court of California in O’Neil v. Crane Co., Cal., No. S177401, 1/12/12
In summary, California’s high court reaffirmed the principle that a product manufacturer may not be held strictly liable or negligent for harm caused by another maker’s product, except where the defendant has some direct responsibility for the harm.  In so holding, California refused to open the floodgates in the asbestos litigation to permit suits against manufacturers that never manufacturer or marketed asbestos-containing products.

Joining the majority of other jurisdictions that have considered the issue, California’s highest court held that California law did not impose liability on manufacturers of shipboard valves and pumps used in conjunction with asbestos-containing parts made by others.  In this case, the high court reversed the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, which ruled in favor of the family of Patrick O’Neil, a naval officer allegedly exposed to asbestos from 1965 to 1967. O’Neil died of mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos, at 62.                                                                                  
 “[A] product manufacturer generally may not be held strictly liable for harm caused by another manufacturer’s product. The only exceptions to this rule arise when the defendant bears some direct responsibility for the harm,” Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote for the court.

The court rejected the family’s argument that Crane Co. and Warren Pumps LLC, which made valves and pumps used on the ship, should be held strictly liable because they foresaw that their products would be used with replacement asbestos parts. The rationale for the Court’s holding is that  “[T]he foreseeability of harm, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for imposing strict liability on the manufacturer of a nondefective product, or one whose arguably defective product does not actually cause harm.”   The Court left open the possibility for imposing liability for a non-manufacturer of asbestos in instances where it could be shown that “the defendant’s own product contributed substantially to the harm” or “the defendant participated substantially in creating a harmful combined use of the products.”  However, that was clearly not the case here.

As to the plaintiff’s negligence claims, the Court held that the defendants pump and valve companies owed no duty of care in the circumstances, based on “strong policy considerations.”
The companies’ connection to O’Neil’s injury was remote because they did not manufacture the asbestos-containing products; imposing a duty would be unlikely to prevent future harm; the Navy made its own purchasing choices and specifications; and consumers could potentially be harmed by too many product warnings, the court reasoned.

Increasingly, the plaintiff bar is seeking to impose strict product liabililty on manufacturers whose products did not cause the alleged harm.  This trend in asbestos cases is not dissimiliar from those pharmaceutical product  liability cases in which the plaintiffs seek to hold a brand name drug manufacturer liable, whose product was never taken by the injured party, for injuries allegedly caused by a generic manufacturer’s product.  These lawsuits are offensive to longstanding product liability case law and policy and should be rejected by the courts. 

Filed under Asbestos, asbestos-related disease, Bloomberg BNA Toxics Law Reporter, California Supreme Court, Crane, Negligence, Neil, strict liabilitly Tagged with