throbber
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NEW YORK
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`05/15/2015
`FILED:
`04:27
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`360
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`OF THE
`NEW YORK
`
`STATE
`COUNTY
`
`PM|
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`INDEX
`NO .
`1 9 0 13 2 / 2 0 1 3
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`05/15/2015
`OF NEW YORK
`
`PRESENT:
`
`ggTH1A
`
`S. KE
`
`Justice
`
`: 190132/2013
`Number
`F.
`CHARLES
`
`Cindex
`HILLYER,
`vs.
`SMITH WATER PRODUCTS
`A.O.
`NUMBER : 011
`SEQUENCE
`TRIAL DE NOVO
`
`CO.,
`
`1 to _ , were read on this motion
`
`numbered
`to Show Cause - Affidavits
`
`- Exhibits
`
`The following
`Notice
`of Motion/Order
`
`papers,
`
`Answering
`
`Affidavits
`
`Replying
`
`Affidavits
`
`-
`
`Exhibits
`
`PART
`
`INDEX NO.
`
`MOTION DATE
`
`MOTION SEQ. NO.
`
`| No(s).
`| No(s).
`| No(s).
`
`to/for
`
`Upon
`
`the foregoing
`
`papers,
`
`it
`
`is ordered
`
`that
`
`this motion
`
`is
`
`8 decided
`
`in
`
`accordance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`annexed
`
`decision.
`
`wOI
`
`-
`
`I-
`Q
`
`u.
`
`>-
`
`rn
`
`Z0
`
`U.I Z
`IX
`I
`th
`ui ~
`cn 0
`
`I-
`
`o
`E u.
`
`Dated:
`
`5
`
`15ll5
`
`°FN
`
`a.S.C.
`
`1. CHECK ONE:
`
`.....................................................................
`
`2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE:
`APPROPRIATE'
`3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
`
`...........................MOTION
`
`................................................
`
`CASE DISPOSED
`IS: O GRANTED
`¤ SETTLE ORDER
`DO NOT POST
`
`O DENIED
`
`FIDUCIARY
`
`APPOINTMENT
`
`CYNTHI
`
`S. KERN
`t~ NONflNAL
`U GRANTED
`IN PART
`O SUBMIT ORDER
`REFERENCE
`
`DISPOSITION
`D OTHER
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`OF THE STATE
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF NEW YORK:
`COUNTY
`Part
`55
`------------------------------------------------------------------x
`IN RE: NEW YORK CITY
`ASBESTOS
`------------------------------------------------------------------x
`CHARLENE
`as Executrix
`CHARLES
`
`HILLYER,
`F. HILLYER,
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`LITIGATION
`
`for
`
`the Estate
`
`of
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Index
`
`No.190132/13
`
`-against-
`SMITH WATER
`
`A.O.
`
`PRODUCTS
`
`CO.,
`
`et al.,
`
`------------------------------------------------------------------x
`CYNTHIA
`HON.
`KERN,
`
`J.S.C.
`
`Defendants.
`
`I
`DECÍSION/ORDER
`
`Recitation,
`for:
`
`as required
`
`by CPLR 2219
`
`(a),
`
`of
`
`the papers
`
`considered
`
`in the
`
`review
`
`of
`
`this motion
`
`Papers
`
`Notice
`
`Annexed....................................
`and Affidavits
`of Motion
`Affidavits...................................................................
`Answering
`Affidavits......................................................................
`Replying
`Exhibits......................................................................................
`
`I
`Numbered
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`Defendant
`
`Burnham
`
`LLC ("Burnham")
`
`has
`
`filed
`
`the
`
`present
`
`post-trial
`
`motion
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 4401
`
`and
`
`§ 4404
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or an order
`
`setting
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`and
`
`directing
`
`or
`
`that
`
`judgment
`
`be entered
`
`in favor
`
`of Burnham,
`
`in the
`
`alternative,
`
`for
`
`a new
`
`trial.
`
`In the
`
`alternative,
`
`it seeks
`
`remittitur
`
`of
`
`the
`
`verdict.
`
`Decedent
`
`Charles
`
`Hillyer
`
`instituted
`
`this
`
`asbestos
`
`product-liability
`
`action.
`
`At
`
`the
`
`time
`
`trial
`
`commenced,
`
`there
`
`were
`
`three
`
`remaining
`
`defendants,
`
`Burnham,
`
`Cleaver
`
`Brooks,
`
`Inc.
`
`and William
`
`Powell
`
`Company.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and Cleaver
`
`Brooks
`
`Inc.
`
`resolved
`
`the
`
`case
`
`during
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`plaintiff
`
`voluntarily
`
`discontinued
`
`as against
`
`William
`
`Powell
`
`Company
`
`before
`
`jury
`
`deliberations
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`began.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`rendered
`
`a verdict
`
`in favor
`
`of plaintiff
`
`and
`
`against
`
`defendant
`
`Burnham
`
`in the
`
`amount
`
`of $20 million
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`also
`
`allocated
`
`thirty
`
`I
`
`percent
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`to Burnham,
`
`thirty
`
`percent
`
`to Cleaver
`
`Brooks
`
`Inc.
`
`and
`
`forty
`
`percent
`
`to William
`
`Powell
`
`Company.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`also
`
`found
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`was
`
`reckless
`
`to warn
`
`of
`
`the
`
`toxic
`
`hazards
`
`of asbestos.
`
`in failing
`
`Plaintiff
`
`testified
`
`at his
`
`deposition
`
`regarding
`
`his
`
`exposure
`
`to Burnham
`
`boilers.
`
`He
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`he worked
`
`around
`
`many
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`as a steamfitter
`
`in the
`
`1970's
`
`and
`
`that
`
`he
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`when
`
`he worked
`
`around
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers.
`
`Tr.
`
`at
`
`651-652,
`
`700.
`
`He
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`he believed
`
`he was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`other
`
`would
`
`tear
`
`off
`
`insulation
`
`from
`
`and
`
`other
`
`boilers
`
`when
`
`workers
`
`the
`
`the
`
`boilers.
`
`Tr.
`
`at 700.
`
`He testified
`
`as follows:
`
`Again,
`in the
`and
`
`they would
`general
`area
`
`again,
`
`walking
`
`off
`
`tear
`that
`in it,
`
`they
`creating
`
`the
`insulation,
`were
`
`working
`dust.
`
`be taking
`we would
`just
`and
`they were
`
`off
`
`valves
`
`throwing
`
`—
`that-and
`and
`it on the
`ground
`
`I be
`
`Tr.
`
`at 700.
`
`Burnham
`
`makes
`
`a number
`
`of arguments
`
`as to why
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`should
`
`be set aside.
`
`It
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`(1)
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or a new trial
`
`because
`
`plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to prove
`
`a proximate
`
`cause
`
`of plaintiff's
`
`injury:
`
`the jury's
`
`that
`
`Burnham's
`
`failure
`
`to warn
`
`was
`
`(2)
`
`recklessness
`
`findings
`
`were
`
`not
`
`supported
`
`by
`
`the
`
`evidence;
`
`(3)
`
`the
`
`court's
`
`instruction
`
`on
`
`recklessness
`
`was
`
`improper;
`
`(5)
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or
`
`judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`because
`
`plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`opinion
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation;
`
`and
`
`(6)
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a new trial
`
`because
`
`the jury's
`
`allocation
`
`of
`
`fault
`
`is against
`
`the
`
`2
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence.
`
`In the
`
`alternative,
`
`it argues
`
`that
`
`the jury's
`
`award
`
`exceeds
`
`what
`
`is a
`
`reasonable
`
`award
`
`under
`
`the
`
`circumstances.
`
`Section
`
`4404(a)
`
`of
`
`the CPLR provides
`
`that
`
`"upon
`
`a motion
`
`of any
`
`party
`
`or on
`
`its own
`
`initiative,
`
`a court
`
`may
`
`set aside
`
`a verdict
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. and
`
`direct
`
`that
`
`judgment
`
`be entered
`
`in favor
`
`of a
`
`party
`
`entitled
`
`to judgment
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law or
`
`it may
`
`order
`
`a new
`
`trial
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. where
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is
`
`to the weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`in the
`
`justice."
`
`of
`
`The
`
`for
`
`contrary
`
`evidence,
`
`[or]
`
`interest
`
`standard
`
`setting
`
`aside
`
`a verdict
`
`is very
`
`high.
`
`The Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`has held
`
`that
`
`a verdict
`
`may
`
`be set aside
`
`only
`
`when
`
`"there
`
`is simply
`
`no valid
`
`line
`
`of
`
`reasoning
`
`and
`
`permissible
`
`inferences"
`
`which
`
`could
`
`have
`
`led
`
`to the
`
`conclusion
`
`reached
`
`the jury.
`
`Cohen
`
`v. Hallmark
`
`by
`
`Cards,
`
`Inc.,
`
`45 N.Y.2d
`
`493
`
`(1978).
`
`The
`
`First
`
`Department
`
`held
`
`that
`
`a verdict
`
`"will
`
`not
`
`be set aside
`
`unless
`
`the
`
`preponderance
`
`of
`
`the
`
`that
`
`could
`
`not
`
`have
`
`reached
`
`its
`
`verdict
`
`upon
`
`fair
`
`interpretation
`
`of
`
`evidence
`
`is so great
`
`the jury
`
`any
`
`evidence."
`
`the
`
`Pavlou
`
`v. City
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`21 A.D.3d
`
`74,
`
`76
`
`(l"
`
`Dept
`
`2005).
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`must
`
`be construed
`
`in the
`
`light most
`
`favorable
`
`to the
`
`party
`
`that
`
`prevailed
`
`at
`
`trial.
`
`See
`
`Motichka
`
`v. Cody,
`
`279
`
`A.D.2d
`
`310
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2001).
`
`Where
`
`the
`
`case
`
`presents
`
`conflicting
`
`expert
`
`testimony,
`
`"[t]he
`
`weight
`
`to be accorded
`
`the
`
`conflicting
`
`testimony
`
`of experts
`
`is 'a matter
`
`peculiarly
`
`within
`
`the
`
`province
`
`of
`
`the
`
`jury.'"
`
`Torricelli
`
`v. Pisacano,
`
`9 A.D.3d
`
`291
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2004)
`
`(1" Dept
`
`2005).
`
`(citation
`
`omitted);
`
`see also
`
`Cholewinski
`
`v. Wisnicki,
`
`21 A.D.3d
`
`791
`
`Initially,
`
`Burnham
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or
`
`judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`on the
`
`ground
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`he would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a warning
`
`if a warning
`
`had
`
`been
`
`provided
`
`by Burnham.
`
`However,
`
`this
`
`1I
`court
`
`has
`
`already
`
`rendered
`
`a decision
`
`at
`
`the
`
`conclusion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`denying
`
`Burnham's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict
`
`on this
`
`issue
`
`and
`
`sees
`
`no reason
`
`to revisit
`
`this
`
`issue.
`
`This
`
`court
`
`specifically
`
`held
`
`as follows:
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`After
`arguments
`counsel
`hearing
`in light
`the
`in this
`plaintiff
`of
`of
`and
`action,
`finds
`court
`at
`able
`to testify
`that
`the
`and
`trial,
`or not
`of whether
`transcript
`so that
`the
`issue
`the jury
`should
`be an issue
`to be decided
`by
`a reasonable
`and
`that
`the jury
`could
`make
`that
`he would
`heeded
`a [warning]
`have
`
`from
`
`both
`
`if
`
`relevant
`and
`deposition
`the
`reading
`testimony
`fact
`and
`is deceased
`plaintiff
`that
`the
`not
`here
`there
`is enough
`deposition
`in the
`testimony
`plaintiff
`would
`a [warning]
`have
`heeded
`rather
`than
`of
`the
`as a matter
`court
`law;
`inference
`from
`the
`of
`the
`plaintiff
`been
`it had
`provided
`
`by
`
`testimony
`to him.
`
`Contrary
`
`to the
`
`argument
`
`made
`
`by Burnham,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`did
`
`not
`
`apply
`
`the
`
`heeding
`
`presumption
`
`in
`
`making
`
`its
`
`ruling
`
`denying
`
`the motion
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict.
`
`Rather,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`found
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`factual
`
`evidence
`
`in the
`
`record
`
`to submit
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of whether
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`if
`
`been
`
`who
`
`was
`
`entitled
`
`to make
`
`a warning
`
`it had
`
`provided
`
`to the jury,
`
`a credibility
`
`determination
`
`as to whether
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a warning
`
`if
`
`it had
`
`been
`
`given.
`
`Moreover,
`
`it
`
`is well
`
`settled
`
`that
`
`"[o]rdinarily,
`
`issues
`
`of proximate
`
`cause
`
`are
`
`fact
`
`questions
`
`to be decided
`
`jury."
`
`by a
`
`White
`
`v. Diaz,
`
`49 A.D.3d
`
`134,
`
`139
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2008)
`
`(internal
`
`citation
`
`omitted).
`
`Indeed,
`
`"[w]hile
`
`it
`
`is appropriate
`
`to decide
`
`the
`
`question
`
`of
`
`legal
`
`cause
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`from
`
`established
`
`where
`
`there
`
`law 'where
`
`only
`
`one
`
`conclusion
`
`may
`
`be drawn
`
`the
`
`facts',
`
`is any
`
`doubt,
`
`confusion,
`
`or difficulty
`
`in deciding
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`ought
`
`to be decided
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`the
`
`better
`
`course
`
`is to leave
`
`the
`
`point
`
`for
`
`the jury
`
`to
`
`decide."
`
`Id
`
`(quoting
`
`Derdiarian
`
`v.
`
`Felix
`
`Contr.
`
`Corp.,
`
`51 N.Y.2d
`
`308,
`
`315
`
`(1980)).
`
`Based
`
`on these
`
`well
`
`established
`
`principles,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`of
`
`this
`
`cause
`
`for
`
`to have
`
`determined
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`appropriate
`
`under
`
`the
`
`circumstances
`
`the jury
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`failure
`
`to warn
`
`was
`
`the
`
`proximate
`
`cause
`
`of plaintiff's
`
`injuries
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`the
`
`court
`
`deciding
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`as it
`
`is not
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`only
`
`one
`
`conclusion
`
`may
`
`be drawn
`
`from
`
`the
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`as to whether
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a warning.
`
`To
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`court
`
`committed
`
`an er or by not
`
`specifically
`
`4
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`charging
`
`the jury
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`plaintiff's
`
`burden
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a
`
`warning
`
`if one
`
`had
`
`been
`
`given,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`this
`
`argument
`
`to be without
`
`merit.
`
`The
`
`court's
`
`charges
`
`on duty
`
`to warn,
`
`proximate
`
`cause
`
`and
`
`burdens
`
`of proof
`
`were
`
`entirely
`
`consistent
`
`with
`
`the
`
`charges
`
`contained
`
`in the
`
`pattern
`
`jury
`
`instructions,
`
`there
`
`is no pattern
`
`jury
`
`instruction
`
`which
`
`contains
`
`the
`
`language
`
`Burnham
`
`wished
`
`the
`
`court
`
`to charge
`
`regarding
`
`burden
`
`of proof
`
`and
`
`proposition
`
`that
`
`court
`
`Burnham
`
`has not
`
`cited
`
`to any
`
`authority
`
`for
`
`the
`
`the
`
`is required
`
`to charge
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`language
`
`regarding
`
`burden
`
`of proof.
`
`Burnham
`
`next
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`court
`
`should
`
`set aside
`
`the jury's
`
`verdict
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`acted
`
`with
`
`reckless
`
`disregard
`
`for
`
`plaintiff's
`
`safety
`
`as the
`
`evidence
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`did
`
`not warrant
`
`submission
`
`of
`
`the
`
`reckless
`
`disregard
`
`issue
`
`to the jury
`
`and
`
`the jury's
`
`finding
`
`of
`
`recklessness
`
`was
`
`against
`
`the
`
`weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence.
`
`argument
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`did
`
`not
`
`Its primary
`
`is that
`
`establish
`
`recklessness
`
`based
`
`on the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`decision
`
`in Maltese
`
`v. Westinghouse
`
`Electric
`
`Corp.,
`
`89 N.Y.2d
`
`955
`
`(1997).
`
`In Maltese,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`adopting
`
`a "gross
`
`negligence
`
`standard'
`
`for
`
`reckless
`
`conduct,
`
`requiring
`
`a finding
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`actor
`
`has
`
`intentionally
`
`done
`
`an act of an unreasonable
`
`character
`
`in disregard
`
`of a known
`
`and
`
`obvious
`
`risk
`
`that was
`
`so
`
`great
`
`as to make
`
`it highly
`
`probable
`
`that
`
`harm would
`
`follow
`
`and
`
`has done
`
`so with
`
`conscious
`
`indifference
`
`to the
`
`outcome."
`
`The
`
`court
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`evidence
`
`to sustain
`
`a
`
`verdict
`
`of
`
`recklessness.
`
`According
`
`to the
`
`court,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`revealed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`was
`
`aware
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to high
`
`concentrations
`
`of asbestos
`
`over
`
`time
`
`could
`
`cause
`
`injury
`
`"but
`
`not
`
`that
`
`workers
`
`such
`
`as [plaintiffs]
`
`were
`
`at
`
`risk
`
`at any
`
`time
`
`it could
`
`have
`
`warned
`
`them."
`
`Id
`
`The
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the jury's
`
`finding
`
`that Bumham
`
`acted
`
`with
`
`reckless
`
`disregard
`
`is
`
`supported
`
`by
`
`the
`
`record
`
`and
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be set aside.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`a valid
`
`line
`
`of
`
`reasoning
`
`and
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`permissible
`
`inferences
`
`which
`
`could
`
`have
`
`led
`
`a rational
`
`jury
`
`to conclude
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`acted
`
`with
`
`reckless
`
`disregard,
`
`unlike
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`in Maltese.
`
`Initially,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`have
`
`rationally
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`had
`
`actual
`
`knowledge
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to high
`
`concentrations
`
`of asbestos
`
`over
`
`time
`
`could
`
`cause
`
`injury.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`also
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`have
`
`that
`
`period
`
`claimed
`
`rationally
`
`concluded
`
`during
`
`the
`
`of plaintiff's
`
`exposure
`
`to Burnham's
`
`boilers
`
`in the
`
`1970's
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`was
`
`aware
`
`of
`
`the
`
`following:
`
`that
`
`there
`
`were
`
`unjacketed
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`still
`
`in use;
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`had
`
`previously
`
`specified
`
`that
`
`these
`
`unjacketed
`
`boilers
`
`should
`
`be
`
`covered
`
`with
`
`asbestos
`
`cement;
`
`that
`
`these
`
`boilers
`
`were
`
`in fact
`
`covered
`
`with
`
`asbestos
`
`cement;
`
`that
`
`the asbestos
`
`cement
`
`would
`
`eventually
`
`have
`
`to be removed
`
`from
`
`the
`
`boilers
`
`when
`
`they
`
`were
`
`replaced
`
`that when
`
`the
`
`asbestos
`
`cement
`
`was
`
`removed
`
`from
`
`the
`
`dust
`
`or discarded;
`
`boilers,
`
`containing
`
`asbestos
`
`would
`
`be dispersed
`
`in the
`
`air
`
`and
`
`could
`
`be breathed
`
`in by workers
`
`in the
`
`vicinity,
`
`including
`
`workers
`
`who
`
`were
`
`not
`
`specifically
`
`working
`
`on the
`
`boilers;
`
`that Bumham
`
`never
`
`tested
`
`or
`
`investigated
`
`the
`
`safety
`
`of asbestos
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`it knew
`
`asbestos
`
`was
`
`being
`
`used
`
`with
`
`its boilers;
`
`and
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`did
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`any warnings
`
`to any
`
`of
`
`these
`
`workers
`
`in
`
`violation
`
`of
`
`its
`
`continuing
`
`duty
`
`to warn
`
`post
`
`sale.
`
`Based
`
`on these
`
`inferences,
`
`which
`
`the jury
`
`at
`
`was
`
`a rational
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`could
`
`reasonably
`
`conclude
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`trial,
`
`there
`
`the jury
`
`to conclude
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`"has
`
`intentionally
`
`done
`
`an act of an unreasonable
`
`character
`
`in
`
`disregard
`
`of a known
`
`and
`
`obvious
`
`risk
`
`that was
`
`so great
`
`as to make
`
`it highly
`
`probable
`
`that
`
`harm
`
`would
`
`follow
`
`and
`
`has done
`
`so with
`
`conscious
`
`indifference
`
`to the
`
`outcome."
`
`Id
`
`Moreover,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`rationally
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`could
`
`have
`
`warned
`
`workers
`
`such
`
`as plaintiff
`
`in the
`
`1970's
`
`that
`
`they were
`
`at
`
`risk
`
`when
`
`they
`
`were
`
`in the
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`of
`
`the
`
`unjacketed
`
`boilers
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`that
`
`the
`
`asbestos
`
`cement
`
`was
`
`removed
`
`from
`
`the
`
`vicinity
`
`boilers.
`
`This
`
`exact
`
`issue
`
`was
`
`recently
`
`addressed
`
`by
`
`Justice
`
`Madden
`
`in Assenzio
`
`v. A.O.
`
`Smith
`
`Water
`
`Products,
`
`Co.,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`190008/2012
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct. NY Co
`
`2012).
`
`In that
`
`decision,
`
`she
`
`rejected
`
`the
`
`same
`
`argument
`
`being
`
`made
`
`in the
`
`present
`
`case
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`evidence
`
`before
`
`the jury
`
`to uphold
`
`a finding
`
`of
`
`recklessness
`
`as against
`
`Burnham
`
`under
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`in Maltese.
`
`According
`
`to Justice
`
`Madden:
`
`dangers
`available
`
`of asbestos
`in various
`
`exposure
`trade
`
`to the
`respect
`as information
`regulations
`find
`that
`
`with
`evidence
`presented
`Plaintiffs
`sufficient
`as well
`information
`from
`available
`publically
`in government
`in other
`and
`literature
`and
`journals
`the jury
`compensation
`so that
`worker's
`could
`laws,
`of
`to asbestos.
`dangers
`have
`known
`the
`of exposure
`to establish
`was
`presented
`that
`Burnham...specified
`be used
`equipment.
`in their
`products
`would
`
`containing
`
`and;statutes,
`...Burnham
`sufficient
`or knew
`
`Moreover,
`the
`use of,
`
`including
`knew
`or should
`evidence
`at
`that
`asbestos
`
`trial
`
`This
`evidence
`Burnham
`acted
`of
`the
`dangers
`specified
`the
`such
`insulation;
`it
`failed
`to warn
`
`to sustain
`proof
`sufficient
`establishes
`with
`to the
`rights
`indifference
`gross
`of
`a history
`of asbestos;
`it had
`insulation
`on the
`use of asbestos
`it
`failed
`to perform
`about
`dangers
`
`selling
`exterior
`with
`
`the
`
`testing
`any
`of asbestos.
`
`the jury's
`or safety
`boilers
`and
`respect
`
`determination
`of others,
`for
`over
`
`knew
`
`it
`
`that
`as Burnham
`hundred
`one
`years;
`and
`its boilers
`sold
`to asbestos,
`and
`
`of
`interior
`to exposure
`
`Moreover,
`
`as the First
`
`Department
`
`found
`
`in the Dummitt
`
`case
`
`against
`
`Crane,
`
`there
`
`was;
`
`sufficient
`asbestos.
`dangers
`admitted
`
`evidence
`[defendant's]
`showing
`that
`demonstrated
`evidence
`The
`1930's
`of asbestos
`as early
`as the
`it knew
`of asbestos
`the
`dangers
`
`of
`
`reckless
`
`by
`
`[defendant]
`from
`various
`the
`
`disregard
`had
`trade
`associations,
`1970's.
`
`the
`
`for
`received
`
`hazards
`warnings
`
`posed
`about
`
`by
`the
`
`and
`
`[defendant]
`
`early
`
`Similarly,
`
`in this
`
`case
`
`against
`
`Burnham,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`admitted
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`reasonably
`
`infer
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`had
`
`received
`
`warnings
`
`about
`
`the
`
`danger
`
`of asbestos
`
`as early
`
`as the
`
`1930's
`
`from
`
`various
`
`trade
`
`associations
`
`and
`
`that
`
`it knew
`
`about
`
`the
`
`dangers
`
`of asbestos
`
`in the
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`1970's
`
`when
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`allegedly
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers.
`
`Burnham
`
`next
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`court's
`
`instruction
`
`on recklessness
`
`was
`
`improper
`
`as it
`
`failed
`
`to adequately
`
`convey
`
`to the jury
`
`the
`
`level
`
`of
`
`culpability
`
`required
`
`to support
`
`a recklessness
`
`finding.
`
`It argues
`
`that
`
`the jury
`
`charge
`
`contained
`
`in pattern
`
`jury
`
`instruction
`
`2:275.2,
`
`which
`
`is the
`
`charge
`
`that
`
`this
`
`court
`
`used,
`
`fails
`
`to incorporate
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`required
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`as the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`language
`
`it used
`
`to
`
`decision
`
`in Maltese.
`
`This
`
`argument
`
`is without
`
`basis
`
`instruct
`
`the jury
`
`on the
`
`recklessness
`
`standard
`
`was
`
`proper.
`
`As
`
`Justice
`
`Madden
`
`recently
`
`held
`
`in
`
`Assenzio
`
`v. A.0
`
`Water
`
`Smith
`
`Prod.,
`
`"in Maltese,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`did
`
`not
`
`hold
`
`that
`
`any
`
`specific
`
`language
`
`was
`
`required,
`
`and
`
`the PJI
`
`charge,
`
`as given,
`
`adequately
`
`expressed
`
`the
`
`standard."
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`First
`
`Department
`
`in In re New York
`
`City
`
`Asbestos
`
`Litig.
`
`(Konstantin
`
`and Dummitt),
`
`121 A.D.3d
`
`230
`
`(1" Dept
`
`2014)
`
`("Dummitt")
`
`recently
`
`upheld
`
`a finding
`
`of
`
`recklessness
`
`as to other
`
`defendants
`
`the
`
`in an asbestos
`
`product
`
`liability
`
`litigation
`
`where
`
`the
`
`same
`
`exact
`
`language
`
`was
`
`used
`
`in charging
`
`jury
`
`on recklessness.
`
`Moreover,
`
`Burnham
`
`has not
`
`cited
`
`any
`
`cases where
`
`a court
`
`has
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the
`
`language
`
`used
`
`in the
`
`pattern
`
`jury
`
`instruction
`
`to define
`
`recklessness
`
`has ever
`
`been
`
`overturned
`
`by any
`
`court
`
`as not
`
`articulating
`
`the
`
`proper
`
`standard
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`this
`
`charge
`
`has
`
`been
`
`used
`
`in countless
`
`litigations,
`
`including
`
`numerous
`
`asbestos
`
`and
`
`non-asbestos
`
`cases,
`
`and
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`eighteen
`
`years
`
`ago.'
`ago.
`
`that
`
`the Maltese
`
`decision
`
`is from
`
`1997,
`
`approximately
`
`Burnham
`
`next
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or
`
`judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`because
`
`plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`opinion
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`as required
`
`under
`
`the
`
`holding
`
`in Parker
`
`v. Mobil
`
`Oil Corp.,
`
`7 N.Y.3d
`
`434
`
`(2006).
`
`In Parker,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`it
`
`"is well
`
`established
`
`that
`
`an opinion
`
`on causation
`
`should
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`exposure
`
`to a toxin,
`
`that
`
`the
`
`toxin
`
`is capable
`
`of
`
`causing
`
`the
`
`particular
`
`illness
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`(general
`
`causation)
`
`and
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to sufficient
`
`levels
`
`of
`
`the
`
`toxin
`
`to cause
`
`the
`
`illness
`
`(specific
`
`causation.)."
`
`Id.
`
`at 448.
`
`However,
`
`"it
`
`is not
`
`always
`
`necessary
`
`for
`
`a plaintiff
`
`to
`
`quantify
`
`exposure
`
`levels
`
`precisely
`
`or use the
`
`dose-response
`
`relationship,
`
`provided
`
`that whatever
`
`methods
`
`an expert
`
`uses
`
`to establish
`
`causation
`
`are generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community."
`
`Id.
`
`In that
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`rejected
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`experts'
`
`testimony
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`gasoline
`
`caused
`
`plaintiff's
`
`AML
`
`as "[p]laintiff's
`
`experts
`
`were
`
`unable
`
`to identify
`
`a single
`
`epidemiologic
`
`study
`
`finding
`
`an inci·eased
`
`risk
`
`of AML
`
`a s a result
`
`of exposure
`
`to
`
`gasoline."
`
`Id.
`
`at 450.
`
`In Cornell
`
`v. 360 W. 51st Realty
`
`LLC,
`
`22 N.Y.
`
`762
`
`(2014),
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`again
`
`be made
`
`to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`tort
`
`addressed
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of what
`
`showing
`
`must
`
`in a toxic
`
`case.
`
`It stated
`
`as follows:
`
`Parker
`numerical
`
`explains
`value'
`value'
`
`that
`'precise
`is not
`required
`dispensed
`with
`though,
`to cause
`the
`claimed
`Circuit
`
`means,
`substance
`the Eight
`that
`conclude
`kind
`of harm
`
`commented....,
`plaintiff
`was
`the
`plaintiff
`
`the
`that
`
`quantification'
`
`relationship'
`
`or a 'dose-response
`causation.
`of
`a showing
`to make
`specific
`to establish
`sufficient
`burden
`a plaintiff's
`effect....As
`the Circuit
`health
`adverse
`there must
`be some
`evidence
`from
`of
`exposed
`to levels
`that
`agent
`that
`claims
`suffered.
`to have
`
`Court
`which
`are known
`
`'an
`exact
`or
`Parker
`by no
`exposure
`to a
`of Appeals
`a factfinder
`to cause
`
`for
`can
`
`the
`
`Id.
`
`at 784.
`
`In Lustenring
`
`v. AC&S,
`
`Inc.,
`
`13 A.D.3d
`
`(l"
`
`69
`
`Dept
`
`2004),
`
`ly. denied,4N.Y.3d
`
`708
`
`(2005),
`
`an asbestos
`
`case,
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`addressed
`
`what
`
`showing
`
`must
`
`be made
`
`to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`in an asbestos
`
`case.
`
`According
`
`to the
`
`court,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`showed
`
`that
`
`plaintiffs
`
`worked
`
`all
`
`day
`
`for
`
`long
`
`periods
`
`in clouds
`
`of dust which
`
`was
`
`raised
`
`by
`
`the manipulation
`
`and
`
`crushing
`
`of defendant's
`
`packing
`
`and
`
`gaskets,
`
`which
`
`were made
`
`with
`
`asbestos.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`found
`
`that
`
`"[v]alid
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`such
`
`dust,
`
`raised
`
`from
`
`asbestos
`
`products
`
`and
`
`9
`
`I
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`not
`
`just
`
`from
`
`industrial
`
`air
`
`in general,
`
`necessarily
`
`contains
`
`enough
`
`asbestos
`
`to cause
`
`mesothelioma."
`
`Id.
`
`at 70.
`
`In the
`
`present
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`presented
`
`in this
`
`case was
`
`sufficient
`
`to satisfy
`
`the
`
`standards
`
`enunciated
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`in Parker
`
`and Cornell.
`
`Initially,
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`appellate
`
`courts
`
`in New York
`
`which
`
`have
`
`addressed
`
`the
`
`issue,
`
`both
`
`before
`
`after
`
`Parker
`
`have
`
`been
`
`have
`
`held
`
`that
`
`the
`
`presence
`
`of
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`and
`
`decided,
`
`consistently
`
`visible
`
`an asbestos
`
`containing
`
`product
`
`establishes
`
`a sufficient
`
`foundation
`
`for
`
`an expert
`
`to conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`use of
`
`such
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`mesothelioma
`
`and Burnham
`
`has not
`
`cited
`
`to any New York
`
`cases where
`
`a court
`
`has not
`
`upheld
`
`a finding
`
`of
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`where
`
`visible
`
`dust was
`
`present.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`Lustenring.;
`
`Penn
`
`v. Amchem,
`
`85 A.D
`
`3d 475,
`
`476
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2010)("On
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`causation,
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`was
`
`provided
`
`by
`
`[plhintiff's]
`
`testimony
`
`that
`
`dust
`
`expert's
`
`that
`
`visible
`
`emanated
`
`while
`
`working
`
`with
`
`the
`
`dental
`
`liners
`
`and
`
`by his
`
`testimony
`
`such
`
`dust must
`
`have
`
`contained
`
`enough
`
`asbestos
`
`to cause
`
`his mesothelioma");
`
`Matter
`
`of New York
`
`Asbestòs
`
`Litig,
`
`28 A.D.3d
`
`255
`
`(1st
`
`Dept
`
`2006)(evidence
`
`fairly
`
`interpreted,
`
`permitted
`
`liability
`
`verdicts
`
`reached
`
`by
`
`the jury
`
`where
`
`the
`
`"evidence
`
`demonstrated
`
`that
`
`both
`
`plaintiffs
`
`were
`
`regularly
`
`exposed
`
`to dust
`
`from
`
`working
`
`with
`
`defendant's
`
`gaskets
`
`and
`
`packing,
`
`which
`
`were made
`
`of
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`such
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`asbestos
`
`products
`
`contained
`
`asbestos.
`
`The
`
`experts
`
`containing
`
`enough
`
`asbestos
`
`to cause mesothelioma");
`
`Berger
`
`v. Achem
`
`Products,
`
`13 Misc.
`
`3d 335,
`
`346
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct NY Co
`
`2006)(
`
`"It
`
`has
`
`long
`
`been
`
`established
`
`that mesothelioma
`
`caused
`
`by asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`is
`
`frequently
`
`not
`
`dose
`
`related
`
`and
`
`relatively
`
`small
`
`numbers
`
`of
`
`fiber
`
`that
`
`are inhaled
`
`may
`
`remain
`
`in
`
`the
`
`lungs
`
`for
`
`long
`
`periods
`
`and
`
`cause mesothelioma").
`
`Cf
`
`Arthur
`
`Juni
`
`v. A.O.
`
`Smith
`
`Water
`
`Product,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`190315/2012
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct NY Co
`
`2015)(evidence
`
`offered
`
`insufficient
`
`to prove
`
`10
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`that
`
`dust
`
`to which
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`contained
`
`any
`
`asbestos).
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`of David
`
`Schwartz,
`
`M.D.
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`to present
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`to the jury
`
`to be resolved.
`
`Initially,
`
`he
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is no safe
`
`level
`
`of exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`in regard
`
`to causing
`
`mesothelioma
`
`and
`
`that
`
`there
`
`are people
`
`who
`
`mesothelioma
`
`after
`
`exposed
`
`low
`
`develop
`
`being
`
`to extraordinarily
`
`concentrations
`
`of asbestos.
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1019.
`
`He
`
`further
`
`testified
`
`that:
`
`one
`
`fiber
`The
`
`that
`risk
`
`can
`you
`fiber
`one
`experienced
`exposures.
`the
`first
`
`developing
`
`pick
`never
`could
`cause
`throughout
`
`What
`exposure
`the
`
`the
`out
`disease.
`their
`can
`you
`to onset
`particular
`
`lifetime,
`is the
`say
`of disease
`
`outcome,
`
`caused
`is related
`and
`you
`exposures
`are all
`in this
`
`case,
`
`the
`disease,
`amount
`to the
`pick
`apart
`can't
`that
`took
`place
`related
`to, and
`contribute
`the mesothelioma
`
`though
`even
`of exposure
`individual
`those
`within
`
`its possible
`that
`that
`someone
`
`the
`latency
`to the
`risk
`
`period,
`of
`
`know
`
`we
`All
`mesothelioma
`mesothelioma.
`
`is the
`and
`
`cumulative
`that
`all
`of
`
`exposure
`exposure
`
`the
`
`increased
`contributed
`
`his
`
`risk
`cumulative
`to the
`development
`
`of developing
`of his
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1021,
`
`1029.
`
`He
`
`further
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`plaintiff's
`
`mesothelioma
`
`was
`
`caused
`
`by occupational
`
`plaintiff
`
`"was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos.
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1027.
`
`He testified
`
`that
`
`between
`
`1960
`
`and
`
`1983.
`
`During
`
`that
`
`time
`
`he was
`
`exposed
`
`on a very
`
`regular
`
`basis
`
`to asbestos
`
`while
`
`working
`
`as a steamfitter.
`
`He was
`
`exposed
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of his
`
`own
`
`activities
`
`as a steamfitter
`
`and
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of working
`
`around
`
`others
`
`who
`
`were
`
`working
`
`in his
`
`environment
`
`on products
`
`that were,
`
`or
`
`insulated
`
`with
`
`asbestos."
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1028.
`
`he also
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`based
`
`on
`
`machinery
`
`that was
`
`Finally,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`that while
`
`he was working
`
`as a steamfitter,
`
`he worked
`
`around
`
`many
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers,
`
`that
`
`other
`
`workers
`
`were
`
`tearing
`
`off
`
`insulation
`
`from
`
`the Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`in his
`
`presence
`
`and
`
`that
`
`there
`
`would
`
`be visible
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`this
`
`activity,
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`exposure
`
`to the
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`the
`
`boilers
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`contributing
`
`factor
`
`in terms
`
`of Mr.
`
`Hillyer
`
`developing
`
`11
`
`I
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`mesothelioma."
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1036.
`
`The
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`this
`
`opinion
`
`was
`
`his
`
`"personal
`
`and
`
`professional
`
`training
`
`in occupational
`
`environmental
`
`medicine
`
`as well
`
`as [his]
`
`experience
`
`in this
`
`area,
`
`the
`
`peer
`
`reviewed
`
`literature,
`
`the
`
`opinions
`
`of professional
`
`societies,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`opinion
`
`of
`
`scientific
`
`organizations
`
`as well
`
`as regulatory
`
`bodies."
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1036.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the methods
`
`used
`
`by plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`to establish
`
`that
`
`levels
`
`of asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham's
`
`products
`
`for
`
`those
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to sufficient
`
`products
`
`to have
`
`been
`
`a substantial
`
`contributing
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`plaintiff's
`
`mesothelioma
`
`are generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community.
`
`Based
`
`on the
`
`testimony
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`sufficiently
`
`established
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is no
`
`safe
`
`level
`
`of exposure
`
`to asbestos,
`
`that
`
`even
`
`a low
`
`dose
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`can
`
`cause
`
`mesothelioma
`
`and
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`in
`
`release
`
`of
`
`visible
`
`dust when
`
`the
`
`insulation
`
`was
`
`removed.
`
`As
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`made
`
`clear
`
`Parker.
`
`"it
`
`is not
`
`always
`
`necessary
`
`for
`
`a plaintiff
`
`to quantify
`
`exposure
`
`levels
`
`precisely
`
`or use the
`
`dose-response
`
`relationship,
`
`provided
`
`that whatever
`
`methods
`
`an expert
`
`uses
`
`to establish
`
`causation
`
`are generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community."
`
`Id.
`
`Burnham's
`
`argument
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a new trial
`
`because
`
`the jury's
`
`allocation
`
`of
`
`fault
`
`supported
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`is without
`
`basis.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`a sufficient
`
`is not
`
`by
`
`evidentiary
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`the jury's
`
`determination
`
`as to the
`
`allocation
`
`of
`
`fault
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`which
`
`allocated
`
`30 percent
`
`of
`
`the
`
`fault
`
`to Burnham.
`
`The
`
`next
`
`issue
`
`the
`
`court
`
`must
`
`address
`
`is whether
`
`the jury's
`
`award
`
`to Hillyer
`
`of
`
`$20,000,000
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`from
`
`the
`
`onset
`
`of mesothelioma
`
`to the
`
`date
`
`of his
`
`death
`
`was
`
`excessive
`
`and
`
`if so, whether
`
`a new trial
`
`on the
`
`issue
`
`of damages
`
`should
`
`be ordered.
`
`The
`
`12
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`standard
`
`to be applied
`
`is whether
`
`the
`
`award
`
`"deviates
`
`materially
`
`from
`
`what
`
`would
`
`be reasonable
`
`compensation."
`
`CPLR
`
`§5501
`
`(c).
`
`In order
`
`to determine
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`award
`
`was
`
`excessive,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`must
`
`compare
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`case with
`
`analogous
`
`cases with
`
`awards
`
`that
`
`have
`
`been
`
`previously
`
`upheld.
`
`See Donlon
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`284 A.D.2d
`
`13,
`
`18
`
`(IS"
`
`Dept
`
`2001).
`
`The most
`
`recent
`
`decision
`
`from
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`addressing
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of damages
`
`to be awarded
`
`case
`
`is Dummitt.
`
`In that
`
`in a mesothelioma
`
`case,
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`upheld
`
`an award
`
`of past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`of $4.5 million
`
`and
`
`$3.5 million
`
`for
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering.
`
`It also
`
`upheld
`
`an award
`
`of past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`of $5.5 million
`
`and
`
`an award
`
`for
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`for
`
`$2.5 million.
`
`In other
`
`decisions,
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`upheld
`
`an award
`
`of $1.5 million
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`and
`
`$2 million
`
`for
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`(Penn
`
`v. Achem
`
`Products,
`
`85
`
`A.D.3d
`
`(IS'
`
`Dept
`
`and
`
`$3 million
`
`and
`
`$4.5 million
`
`(Matter
`
`475)
`
`2011)
`
`respectively
`
`of New York
`
`Ashestos
`
`Litig,
`
`Marshall,
`
`28 A.D.3d
`
`255)
`
`(1S' Dept
`
`2006).
`
`In the
`
`instant
`
`case,
`
`the jury
`
`awarded
`
`plaintiff
`
`$20,000,000
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`from
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of diagnosis
`
`until
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of death.
`
`He
`
`started
`
`experiencing
`
`symptoms
`
`in March
`
`of 2012,
`
`he was
`
`diagnosed
`
`with
`
`mesothelioma
`
`in March
`
`2013
`
`and
`
`passed
`
`I
`away
`
`in September
`
`2014.
`
`During
`
`that
`
`period,
`
`he experienced
`
`severe
`
`pain;
`
`shortness
`
`of breath;
`
`great
`
`difficulty
`
`breathing;
`
`multiple
`
`thoracenteses;
`
`debilitating
`
`chemotherapy
`
`treatments;
`
`a radical
`
`pleurectomy;
`
`radiation;
`
`and
`
`pneumonia.
`
`Based
`
`on all
`
`the
`
`circumstances
`
`of Mr.
`
`Hillyer's
`
`injuries,
`
`the
`
`award
`
`of
`
`$20,000,000
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`deviates
`
`materially
`
`from
`
`what
`
`would
`
`be reasonable
`
`compensation.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`5501
`
`(c),
`
`the
`
`award
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`is vacated
`
`and
`
`a
`
`new trial
`
`ordered
`
`on the
`
`issue
`
`of damages
`
`unless
`
`plaintiff
`
`within
`
`30 days
`
`of
`
`service
`
`of a copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`decision
`
`and
`
`order
`
`with
`
`notice
`
`of entry
`
`stipulates
`
`to reduce
`
`the
`
`award
`
`to $6 million.
`
`13
`
`

`

`FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2018 02:54 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200
`
`INDEX NO. 814293/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2018
`
`Accordingly,
`
`it
`
`is hereby
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the
`
`branches
`
`of Burnham's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`P
`
`verdict
`
`is denied;
`
`and
`
`it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the
`
`portion
`
`of Burnham's
`
`motion
`
`to set aside
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is granted
`
`only
`
`to the
`
`extent
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket