throbber
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`this
`
`[Until
`Schwartz
`
`opinion
`v. Honeywell
`
`in the Ohio Official
`appears
`Inc., Slip Opinion
`Internatl.,
`
`advance
`Reports
`No. 2018-Ohio-474.]
`
`sheets,
`
`it may
`
`be cited
`
`as
`
`NOTICE
`
`This
`
`slip
`
`opinion
`
`is subject
`
`to formal
`
`revision
`
`before
`
`it
`
`is published
`
`in an
`
`advance
`
`sheet
`
`of
`
`the Ohio
`
`Official
`
`Reports.
`
`Readers
`
`are
`
`requested
`
`promptly
`
`notify
`
`the Reporter
`
`of Decisions,
`
`Supreme
`
`Court
`
`of Ohio,
`
`to
`
`65
`
`South
`
`Front
`
`Street,
`
`Columbus,
`
`Ohio
`
`43215,
`
`of any
`
`typographical
`
`or other
`
`formal
`
`errors
`
`in the opinion,
`
`in order
`
`that
`
`corrections
`
`may
`
`be made
`
`before
`
`the
`
`opinion
`
`is published.
`
`SLIP OPINION
`
`NO.
`
`2018-OHIO-474
`
`SCHWARTZ,
`
`EXR.,
`
`APPELLEE,
`
`ET AL.
`
`v. HONEYWELL
`
`INTERNATIONAL,
`
`INC.,
`
`APPELLANT.
`
`[Until
`
`opinion
`
`in the Ohio
`
`Official
`
`Reports
`
`advance
`
`it
`
`this
`
`appears
`
`sheets,
`
`may
`
`be cited
`
`as Schwartz
`
`v. Honeywell
`
`Internatl.,
`
`
`
`Inc.,,Inc..,
`
`Slip
`
`Opinion
`
`No.
`
`2018-Ohio-474.]
`
`Evidence-Asbestos
`
`claims-R.C.
`
`2307.96-A
`
`theory
`
`of causation
`
`based
`
`only
`
`on a
`
`plaintiff's
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`to various
`
`asbestos-containing
`
`products
`
`is
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`a particular
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`plaintiff's
`
`asbestos
`
`related
`
`disease-Trial
`
`court
`
`erred
`
`in
`
`denying
`
`manufacturer's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`directed
`
`verdict-Court
`
`appeals'
`appeals
`
`of
`
`judgment
`
`reversed.
`
`(No.
`
`2016-1372-Submitted
`
`October
`
`17, 2017-Decided
`
`January
`
`24,
`
`2018.*)
`
`APPEAL
`
`from
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`for Cuyahoga
`
`County,
`
`No.
`
`103377,
`
`2016-Ohio-3175.
`
`Note:
`*Reporter's
`8, 2018,
`February
`the decision.
`
`on January
`24, 2018, but was released
`to the public
`cause was decided
`This
`to the resignation
`of Justice William
`subsequent
`who participated
`M. O'Neill,
`
`on
`in
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`
`OF OHIO
`
`DEWINE,
`
`J.
`
`{¶
`
`1} To
`
`recover
`
`on
`
`a claim
`
`for
`
`asbestos-related
`
`injuries,
`
`a plaintiff
`
`must
`
`show
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to a particular
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a "substantial
`
`factor"
`
`in
`
`causing
`
`"substantial
`
`theory,"
`
`her
`
`asbestos-related
`
`injuries.
`
`The
`
`primary
`
`question
`
`here
`
`is whether
`
`the
`
`factor"
`
`requirement
`
`which
`
`postulates
`
`that
`
`may
`
`every
`
`be met
`
`through
`
`a "cumulative-exposure
`
`non-minimal
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`is
`
`a
`
`substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`mesothelioma.
`
`We
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`cumulative-
`
`causing
`
`exposure
`
`theory
`
`is inconsistent
`
`with
`
`the
`
`test
`
`for
`
`causation
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in R.C.
`
`2307.96
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`not
`
`a sufficient
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`finding
`
`that
`
`a defendant's
`
`conduct
`
`was
`
`a
`
`substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`an asbestos-related
`
`disease.
`
`{¶ 2} The
`
`court
`
`of appeals
`
`held
`
`otherwise,
`
`so we
`
`reverse
`
`its judgment.
`
`And
`
`because
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`in this
`
`case was
`
`not
`
`sufficient
`
`to show
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`the manufacturer's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in the
`
`causing
`
`we
`
`enter
`
`judgment
`
`for
`
`the manufacturer.
`
`the
`
`injury,
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`{¶ 3} Kathleen
`
`Schwartz
`
`died
`
`from
`
`mesothelioma,
`
`a disease
`
`almost
`
`always
`
`caused
`
`by breathing
`
`asbestos
`
`fibers.
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`came
`
`largely
`
`through
`
`her
`
`father,
`
`who
`
`worked
`
`as an electrician.
`
`Growing
`
`up in the
`
`family
`
`home,
`
`Kathleen
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`fibers
`
`from
`
`her
`
`father's
`
`work
`
`clothes,
`
`which
`
`she
`
`often
`
`helped
`
`launder.
`
`In
`
`addition,
`
`on
`
`occasion
`
`during
`
`that
`
`period,
`
`her
`
`father
`
`installed
`
`new brakes
`
`in the
`
`cars.
`
`The
`
`which
`
`contained
`
`asbestos,
`
`were
`
`manufactured
`
`by Bendix
`
`Corporation.
`
`family
`
`brakes,
`
`{¶ 4} Following
`
`Kathleen's
`
`death,
`
`Mark
`
`Schwartz
`
`("Schwartz"),
`
`Kathleen's
`
`husband,
`
`filed
`
`a lawsuit
`
`against
`
`a number
`
`of
`
`defendants.
`
`Eventually,
`
`the
`
`case
`
`proceeded
`
`to
`
`trial
`
`against
`
`only
`
`one-Honeywell
`
`International,
`
`Inc.,
`
`the
`
`successor-in-interest
`
`to Bendix.
`
`To
`
`succeed
`
`on
`
`his
`
`claim
`
`against
`
`Honeywell,
`
`Schwartz
`
`had
`
`to show
`
`that
`
`Kathleen
`
`had
`
`been
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`the
`
`brakes
`
`and
`
`that
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`her
`
`contracting
`
`mesothelioma.
`
`2
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`January
`
`Term,
`
`2018
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96.
`
`The
`
`issue
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`was-and
`
`here
`
`on appeal
`
`is-whether
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`from Bendix
`
`brake
`
`products
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`her mesothelioma.
`
`{¶ 5} During
`
`the jury
`
`trial,
`
`Schwartz
`
`presented
`
`testimony
`
`from
`
`Kathleen's
`
`father
`
`and mother
`
`about
`
`how
`
`Kathleen
`
`may
`
`have
`
`been
`
`exposed
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`her
`
`father's
`
`brake
`
`work
`
`and
`
`from
`
`his
`
`occupation
`
`as an electrician.
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`products
`
`was
`
`through
`
`her
`
`father's
`
`changing
`
`of
`
`in
`
`that
`
`ten
`
`in
`
`the
`
`the
`
`brakes
`
`the
`
`family
`
`cars-something
`
`occurred
`
`five
`
`to
`
`times
`
`garage
`
`of
`
`the
`
`family
`
`home
`
`during
`
`the
`
`18 years
`
`Kathleen
`
`lived
`
`there.
`
`Kathleen
`
`her
`
`siblings
`
`used
`
`the
`
`garage
`
`to access
`
`the
`
`backyard,
`
`where
`
`they
`
`would
`
`play.
`
`and
`
`Her
`
`father
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`the
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`changing
`
`the
`
`brakes
`
`would
`
`remain
`
`on his
`
`clothes
`
`and
`
`that
`
`he would
`
`play
`
`with
`
`the children
`
`afterwards
`
`without
`
`changing
`
`those
`
`clothes.
`
`Kathleen's
`
`mother
`
`described
`
`how
`
`Kathleen
`
`would
`
`help
`
`do
`
`the
`
`family's
`
`laundry,
`
`which
`
`her
`
`father
`
`may
`
`have
`
`included
`
`the
`
`clothes
`
`had worn
`
`while
`
`changing
`
`brakes.
`
`But
`
`there
`
`was
`
`no
`
`specific
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`that
`
`Kathleen
`
`helped
`
`wash
`
`those
`
`clothes.
`
`{¶ 6} Kathleen
`
`was
`
`also
`
`exposed
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`other
`
`manufacturers'
`
`products
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of her
`
`father's
`
`full-time
`
`employment
`
`as an electrician.
`
`Her
`
`father
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`he was
`
`regularly
`
`exposed
`
`to "clouds
`
`of asbestos
`
`dust"
`
`while
`
`at work.
`
`He worked
`
`with
`
`products
`
`containing
`
`asbestos
`
`almost
`
`every
`
`work
`
`day.
`
`He would
`
`drive
`
`the
`
`family
`
`car home
`
`from
`
`work,
`
`pick
`
`up Kathleen
`
`from
`
`school,
`
`and
`
`play
`
`with
`
`his
`
`children
`
`without
`
`changing
`
`his
`
`clothes.
`
`And
`
`Kathleen's
`
`mother
`
`stated
`
`in
`
`her
`
`affidavit
`
`that
`
`Kathleen
`
`helped
`
`wash
`
`her
`
`father's
`
`work
`
`clothes.
`
`{¶ 7} Dr. Carlos
`
`Bedrossian,
`
`a pathologist,
`
`testified
`
`as Schwartz's
`
`expert
`
`on
`
`causation.
`
`According
`
`to Dr.
`
`Bedrossian,
`
`there
`
`is no
`
`known
`
`threshold
`
`of
`
`asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`"at
`
`which
`
`mesothelioma
`
`will
`
`not
`
`occur."
`
`He
`
`opined
`
`that
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposures
`
`to Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`and
`
`to asbestos
`
`dust
`
`brought
`
`home
`
`from
`
`her
`
`electrician
`
`job
`
`were
`
`both
`
`contributing
`
`factors
`
`to
`
`her
`
`"total
`
`cumulative
`
`father'
`father's
`
`dose"
`
`of
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`
`OF OHIO
`
`asbestos
`
`exposure.
`
`He
`
`explained
`
`that
`
`the
`
`exposures
`
`that
`
`contributed
`
`to
`
`this
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`were
`
`"significant
`
`include
`
`"the
`
`elusive
`
`background
`
`level
`
`of
`
`meaning
`asbestos"
`
`above
`
`background"
`
`and
`
`did
`
`not
`
`in ambient
`
`air.
`
`Thus,
`
`according
`
`to Dr.
`
`Bedrossian,
`
`Kathleen's
`
`"cumulative"
`
`exposure,
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`the Bendix
`
`brakes,
`
`"was
`
`the
`
`cause
`
`of her
`
`her
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`including
`mesothelioma."
`
`conclusion
`
`of Schwartz's
`
`case
`
`and
`
`again
`
`at
`
`the
`
`close
`
`of
`
`the
`
`{¶ 8} At
`
`the
`
`evidence,
`
`Honeywell
`
`moved
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict,
`
`arguing
`
`that
`
`Schwartz
`
`had
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`was
`
`a
`
`substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`her disease.
`
`The
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`denied
`
`Honeywell's
`
`motion
`
`on
`
`both
`
`occasions.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`ultimately
`
`found
`
`that
`
`Honeywell
`
`was
`
`5 percent
`
`responsible
`
`for
`
`Kathleen's
`
`injuries,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`court
`
`entered
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`Honeywell
`
`in the
`
`amount
`
`of $1,011,639.92.
`
`again
`
`that
`
`Schwartz
`
`presented
`
`{¶ 9} Honeywell
`
`appealed,
`
`arguing
`
`had
`
`insufficient
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`the Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`her mesothelioma.
`
`The Eighth
`
`District
`
`Court
`
`of
`
`Appeals
`
`noted
`
`the
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`her
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`mesothelioma"
`
`that
`
`Kathleen's
`
`"cumulative"
`
`exposure
`
`"was
`
`and
`
`found
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`to be
`
`"based
`
`on
`
`reliable
`
`scientific
`
`evidence."
`
`2016-Ohio-3175,
`
`66 N.E.3d
`
`118,
`
`¶ 48.
`
`Considering
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`and
`
`the
`
`other
`
`evidence
`
`introduced,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`reasonable
`
`minds
`
`could
`
`have
`
`found
`
`in favor
`
`of Schwartz
`
`on the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`causation
`
`and
`
`affirmed
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`court's
`
`denial
`
`of Honeywell's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict.
`
`10} We accepted
`
`{¶
`
`Honeywell's
`
`discretionary
`
`appeal
`
`on
`
`the
`
`following
`
`proposition
`
`of
`
`law:
`
`"A theory
`
`of causation
`
`based
`
`only
`
`upon
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`various
`
`asbestos-containing
`
`products
`
`is insufficient
`
`to demonstrate
`
`that
`
`a particular
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a 'substantial
`
`factor'
`
`under
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96."
`
`See
`
`148 Ohio
`
`St.3d
`
`1442,
`
`2017-Ohio-1427,
`
`72 N.E.3d
`
`656.
`
`4
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`January
`
`Term,
`
`2018
`
`II.
`
`Causation
`
`and
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96
`
`{¶
`
`11}
`
`The
`
`crux
`
`of Honeywell's
`
`argument
`
`is
`
`that
`
`Schwartz's
`
`evidence
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`contributed
`
`to
`
`her
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`did
`
`not
`
`satisfy
`
`the
`
`substantial-factor
`
`causation
`
`requirement
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in R.C.
`
`2307.96.
`
`To
`
`understand
`
`the
`
`statutory
`
`causation
`
`requirements
`
`for
`
`asbestos-exposure
`
`claims,
`
`some
`
`background
`
`on
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`is
`
`helpful.
`
`enactment
`
`of R.C.
`
`Horton
`
`v. Harwick
`
`Chem.
`
`{¶
`
`12}
`
`Before
`
`2307.96,
`
`Corp.,
`
`73 Ohio
`
`St.3d
`
`679,
`
`653 N.E.2d
`
`1196
`
`(1995),
`
`governed
`
`multi-defendant
`
`asbestos
`
`claims.
`
`In Horton,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`a plaintiff
`
`alleging
`
`asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`had
`
`to
`
`show
`
`that
`
`she was
`
`exposed
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`each
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`and
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`each
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a "substantial
`
`factor"
`
`in
`
`causing
`
`court
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`injury.
`
`Id.
`
`at paragraph
`
`one
`
`of
`
`the
`
`syllabus.
`
`The
`
`Horton
`
`whether
`
`should
`
`adopt
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`for
`
`substantial
`
`also
`
`considered
`
`Ohio
`
`causation
`
`developed
`
`in
`
`Lohrmann
`
`v. Pittsburgh
`
`Corning
`
`Corp.,
`
`782
`
`F.2d
`
`1156,
`
`1162-1163
`
`(4th Cir.1986).
`
`Under
`
`the Lohrmann
`
`test,
`
`to survive
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`a plaintiff
`
`must
`
`present
`
`evidence
`
`"of
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`a specific
`
`product
`
`on
`
`a regular
`
`basis
`
`over
`
`some
`
`extended
`
`period
`
`of
`
`time
`
`in proximity
`
`to where
`
`the plaintiff
`
`actually
`
`worked."
`
`Id.
`
`This
`
`manner-frequency-proximity
`
`test
`
`had
`
`been
`
`"embraced
`
`in
`
`practically
`
`every
`
`other
`
`jurisdiction
`
`which
`
`ha[d]
`
`reviewed
`
`asbestos
`
`cases."
`
`Horton
`
`at 691
`
`in part
`
`and
`
`in part).
`
`the
`
`court
`
`(Wright,
`
`J., concurring
`
`dissenting
`
`Nonetheless,
`
`rejected
`
`Lohrmann's
`
`judges
`
`in
`
`an
`
`"unnecessary."
`
`inappropriate
`
`Id.
`
`at 683.
`
`manner-frequency-proximity
`role,"
`
`is
`
`"overly
`
`test,
`burdensome"
`
`concluding
`
`that
`
`it
`
`"casts
`
`for
`
`plaintiffs,
`
`and
`
`is
`
`{¶
`
`13}
`
`The
`
`legislature
`
`ultimately
`
`disagreed
`
`and
`
`nine
`
`years
`
`after
`
`Horton,
`
`stepped
`
`in
`
`to
`
`adopt
`
`the
`
`Lohrmann
`
`test
`
`and
`
`"establish
`
`specific
`
`factors"
`
`to
`
`be
`
`considered
`
`in
`
`determining
`
`whether
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`a
`
`particular
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`asbestos-related
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`
`OF OHIO
`
`disease.
`
`Am.Sub.H.B.
`
`No.
`
`292,
`
`Section
`
`5,
`
`150 Ohio
`
`Laws,
`
`Part
`
`III,
`
`3970,
`
`3992.
`
`To
`
`establish
`
`causation
`
`under
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96,
`
`a plaintiff
`
`must
`
`prove
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`conduct
`
`of
`
`that
`
`particular
`
`defendant
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`the
`
`injury
`
`or
`
`loss."
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96(A).
`
`The
`
`burden
`
`rests with
`
`the plaintiff
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`she was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`"manufactured,
`
`supplied,
`
`installed,
`
`or used
`
`by
`
`the
`
`defendant"
`
`and
`
`that
`
`"exposure
`
`to the
`
`defendant's
`
`asbestos
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`the
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`injury
`
`loss."
`
`or
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96(B).
`
`To
`
`determine
`
`whether
`
`"exposure
`
`to a
`
`causing
`
`particular
`
`defendant's
`
`asbestos
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor,"
`
`the trier
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`is required
`
`to
`
`consider
`
`the manner,
`
`proximity,
`
`and
`
`frequency
`
`and
`
`length
`
`of
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`the
`
`asbestos.
`
`Id.
`
`In
`
`the
`
`uncodified
`
`portion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`enactment,
`
`the
`
`legislature
`
`explained,
`
`"Where
`
`specific
`
`evidence
`
`of
`
`frequency
`
`of
`
`exposure,
`
`proximity
`
`and
`
`length
`
`of
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`a particular
`
`defendant's
`
`asbestos
`
`is lacking,
`
`judgment
`
`in tort
`
`such
`
`a
`
`summary
`
`is appropriate
`
`actions
`
`involving
`
`asbestos
`
`because
`
`plaintiff
`
`lacks
`
`any
`
`evidence
`
`of an essential
`
`element
`
`necessary
`
`prevail."
`
`to
`
`150 Ohio
`
`Laws,
`
`Part
`
`III,
`
`at 3993.
`
`{¶
`
`14}
`
`Thus,
`
`in R.C.
`
`2307.96,
`
`the
`
`legislature
`
`made
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`in
`
`asbestos
`
`there
`
`cases,
`defendant"
`
`must
`
`be
`
`a determination
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`conduct
`
`of
`
`each
`
`"particular
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`causing
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`injury
`
`and
`
`that
`
`this
`
`determination
`
`must
`
`be
`
`based
`
`on
`
`specific
`
`evidence
`
`of
`
`the manner,
`
`proximity,
`
`length
`
`of
`
`the
`
`legislature
`
`did
`
`not
`
`frequency,
`
`and
`
`exposure.
`
`Beyond
`
`that,
`
`however,
`
`specifically
`
`define
`
`"substantial
`
`factor."
`
`{¶
`
`15} Having
`
`examined
`
`the
`
`statutory
`
`scheme,
`
`we
`
`turn
`
`to the
`
`case
`
`before
`
`us.
`
`III.
`
`Cumulative-Exposure
`
`Causation
`
`Is Contrary
`
`to R.C.
`
`2307.96
`
`{¶
`
`16}
`
`Schwartz's
`
`causation
`
`expert,
`
`Dr.
`
`Bedrossian,
`
`did
`
`not
`
`testify
`
`that
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`fibers
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`causing
`
`her
`
`disease.
`
`When
`
`asked
`
`whether
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposures
`
`to Bendix
`
`products
`
`"were
`
`substantial,
`
`significant
`
`and
`
`contributing
`
`factors"
`
`leading
`
`to
`
`her
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`January
`
`Term,
`
`2018
`
`mesothelioma,
`
`Dr.
`
`Bedrossian
`
`replied,
`
`"[T]hey
`
`contributed
`
`to
`
`her
`
`cumulative
`
`exposures
`
`to asbestos
`
`fibers
`
`which
`
`ultimately
`
`was
`
`the
`
`cause
`
`of her
`
`mesothelioma."
`
`{¶
`
`17} Dr.
`
`Bedrossian's
`
`theory
`
`was
`
`that
`
`any
`
`non-minimal
`
`exposure
`
`could
`
`be
`
`considered
`
`causative
`
`because
`
`it
`
`contributed
`
`to
`
`the
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure.
`
`Underlying
`
`testified,
`
`will
`
`not
`
`the
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`theory
`
`are
`
`two
`
`predicates.
`
`First,
`
`as
`
`he
`
`there
`
`is no known
`
`threshold
`
`of asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`"at which
`
`mesothelioma
`
`occur."
`
`"it
`
`is impossible
`
`to determine
`
`which
`
`particular
`
`exposure
`
`Second,
`
`to
`
`carcinogens,
`
`if
`
`any,
`
`caused
`
`an
`
`illness.
`
`In
`
`other
`
`words,
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`the
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`theory
`
`does
`
`not
`
`rely
`
`upon
`
`any
`
`particular
`
`dose
`
`or exposure
`
`to asbestos,
`
`but
`
`rather
`
`all
`
`exposures
`
`contribute
`
`to a cumulative
`
`dose."
`
`Krik
`
`v. Exxon
`
`Mobil
`
`Corp.,
`
`870
`
`F.3d
`
`669,
`
`677
`
`(7th
`
`Cir.2017).
`
`{¶
`
`18}
`
`This
`
`theory
`
`is incompatible
`
`with
`
`the plain
`
`language
`
`of R.C.
`
`2307.96.
`
`The
`
`statute
`
`requires
`
`an individualized
`
`determination
`
`for
`
`each
`
`defendant:
`
`there must
`
`that
`
`conduct
`
`of a "particular
`
`defendant
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor"
`
`in
`
`be a finding
`
`the
`
`causing
`
`theory
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`disease.
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96(A).
`
`But
`
`the
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`examines
`
`defendants
`
`in the
`
`aggregate:
`
`it
`
`says
`
`that
`
`because
`
`the
`
`cumulative
`
`dose was
`
`responsible,
`
`any
`
`defendant
`
`that
`
`contributed
`
`to that
`
`cumulative
`
`dose was
`
`a
`
`substantial
`
`factor.
`
`It
`
`is impossible
`
`to reconcile
`
`a statutory
`
`scheme
`
`that
`
`requires
`
`an
`
`individualized
`
`says
`
`every
`
`finding
`
`of substantial
`
`causation
`
`for
`
`each
`
`defendant
`
`with
`
`a theory
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`that
`
`contributed
`
`to the
`
`overall
`
`exposure
`
`is a substantial
`
`cause.
`
`{¶
`
`19}
`
`The
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`theory
`
`is also
`
`at odds
`
`with
`
`the
`
`statutory
`
`requirement
`
`that
`
`substantial
`
`causation
`
`be measured
`
`based
`
`on the manner,
`
`proximity,
`
`length,
`
`and
`
`duration
`
`of exposure.
`
`In saying
`
`that
`
`all
`
`non-minimal
`
`exposures
`
`count,
`
`Dr.
`
`Bedrossian's
`
`theory
`
`completely
`
`disregards
`
`the manner,
`
`proximity,
`
`length,
`
`and
`
`duration
`
`of exposure.
`
`As
`
`one
`
`court
`
`put
`
`it,
`
`to say
`
`that
`
`any
`
`non-minimal
`
`exposure
`
`sufficient
`
`is "irreconcilable
`
`with
`
`the
`
`rule
`
`requiring
`
`at
`
`least
`
`some
`
`quantification
`
`is
`
`or
`
`means
`
`of assessing
`
`the
`
`amount,
`
`duration,
`
`and
`
`frequency
`
`of exposure
`
`to determine
`
`whether
`
`exposure
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`to be found
`
`a contributing
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`the
`
`disease."
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`
`OF OHIO
`
`(Emphasis
`
`sic.)
`
`In re New York
`
`City
`
`Asbestos
`
`Litigation,
`
`148 A.D.3d
`
`233,
`
`239,
`
`48
`
`N.Y.S.3d
`
`365
`
`(2017).
`
`{¶ 20}
`
`Indeed,
`
`a major
`
`failing
`
`of
`
`the
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`theory
`
`is that
`
`it
`
`does
`
`not
`
`consider
`
`the
`
`relationship
`
`that
`
`different
`
`exposures
`
`may
`
`have
`
`to the
`
`overall
`
`dose
`
`to which
`
`an individual
`
`is exposed.
`
`The
`
`Second
`
`Restatement
`
`identifies
`
`as one
`
`consideration
`
`in determining
`
`whether
`
`an actor's
`
`conduct
`
`is a substantial
`
`factor
`
`"the
`
`number
`
`of other
`
`which
`
`contribute
`
`the
`
`harm
`
`and
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`of
`
`factors
`
`the
`
`effect
`
`which
`
`they
`
`have
`
`in producing
`
`in producing
`it."
`
`2 Restatement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Law
`
`2d,
`
`Torts,
`
`Section
`
`433,
`
`at 432
`
`(1965).
`
`When
`
`causation
`
`is premised
`
`on the
`
`total
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure,
`cause'
`
`a single
`
`exposure
`
`or set of exposures
`
`cannot
`
`be "considered
`
`a 'substantial
`
`of
`
`the
`
`disease
`
`unless
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`or
`
`set
`
`of
`
`exposures
`
`had
`
`a substantial
`
`impact
`
`on
`
`the
`
`total
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure."
`
`(Emphasis
`
`sic.)
`
`D.S.C.
`
`Nos.
`
`2:15-cv-02086-DCN
`
`and
`
`3:15-cv-02123-DCN,
`
`v. 3M Co.,
`Haskins
`2017 WL 3118017,
`
`*7
`
`(July
`
`21,
`
`2017).
`
`are
`
`other
`
`problems
`
`with
`
`the
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`{¶ 21}
`
`There
`
`theory
`
`beyond
`
`its
`
`incompatibility
`
`with
`
`the
`
`statutory
`
`scheme.
`
`Dr.
`
`Bedrossian
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`he
`
`considered
`
`only
`
`non-minimal
`
`exposures
`
`to
`
`be
`
`causative.
`
`But
`
`even
`
`minimal
`
`exposures
`
`contribute
`
`to
`
`one's
`
`cumulative
`
`dose.
`
`In
`
`a theory
`
`that
`
`starts
`
`with
`
`the
`
`premise
`
`that
`
`the total
`
`cumulative
`
`dose
`
`causes
`
`the
`
`disease,
`
`there
`
`is no rational
`
`reason
`
`to exclude
`
`even minimal
`
`exposures,
`
`because
`
`they
`
`also
`
`contribute
`
`to the
`
`cumulative
`
`dose.
`
`Indeed,
`
`a set of minimal
`
`doses may
`
`have
`
`a bigger
`
`cumulative
`
`impact
`
`than
`
`a
`
`non-minimal
`
`single
`
`dose.
`
`See Bostic
`
`v. Georgia-Pacific
`
`Corp.,
`
`439
`
`S.W.3d
`
`341
`
`(Tex.2014).
`
`Presumably,
`
`Dr.
`
`Bedrossian
`
`excludes
`
`minimal
`
`exposures
`
`332,
`
`not
`
`because
`
`they
`
`don't
`
`contribute
`
`to the
`
`total
`
`cumulative
`
`dose
`
`but
`
`because
`
`doesn'
`he doesn't
`
`think
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`be fair
`
`to include
`
`them.
`
`But
`
`this
`
`demonstrates
`
`the
`
`flaw
`
`in his
`
`theory:
`
`like
`
`the
`
`substantial-factor
`
`requirement,
`
`he
`
`is
`
`drawing
`
`a line
`
`based
`
`on
`
`a
`
`certain
`
`level
`
`of exposure;
`
`he is simply
`
`choosing
`
`to draw
`
`the
`
`line
`
`at a different
`
`place
`
`than
`
`the
`
`substantial-factor
`
`requirement.
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`January
`
`Term,
`
`2018
`
`{¶ 22} Our
`
`task
`
`in
`
`evaluating
`
`the
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`theory
`
`is
`
`fairly
`
`straightforward
`
`because
`
`we
`
`are
`
`guided
`
`by
`
`a statute
`
`that
`
`explicitly
`
`requires
`
`a
`
`showing
`
`for
`
`a "particular
`
`defendant"
`
`based
`
`on the manner,
`
`frequency,
`
`proximity,
`
`and
`
`duration
`
`of
`
`exposure.
`
`But
`
`even
`
`without
`
`the
`
`same
`
`statutory
`
`guidance,
`
`courts
`
`have
`
`rejected
`
`the
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`theory.
`
`Noting
`
`that
`
`the theory
`
`does
`
`not
`
`take
`
`into
`
`account
`
`other
`
`exposures
`
`that might
`
`have
`
`caused
`
`the
`
`harm,
`
`the United
`
`States
`
`for
`
`Circuit
`
`render
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`the Sixth
`
`rejected
`
`the
`
`theory
`
`because
`
`"it would
`
`the
`
`substantial
`
`factor
`
`test
`
`'meaningless.'
`
`"
`
`Martin
`
`v. Cincinnati
`
`Gas & Elec.
`
`561
`
`F.3d
`
`439,
`
`443
`
`(6th Cir.2009),
`
`quoting
`
`Lindstrom
`
`v. A-C
`
`Prod.
`
`Liab.
`
`Trust,
`
`Co.,
`
`424
`
`F.3d
`
`488,
`
`is
`
`precisely
`
`493
`
`(6th Cir.2005).
`
`The Ninth
`
`Circuit
`
`expressed
`
`similar
`
`concerns:
`
`"This
`
`the
`
`sort
`
`of
`
`unbounded
`
`liability
`
`that
`
`the
`
`substantial
`
`factor
`
`test
`
`was
`
`developed
`
`to
`
`limit."
`
`McIndoe
`
`v. Huntington
`
`Ingalls,
`
`Inc.,
`
`817 F.3d
`
`1170,
`
`1177
`
`(9th
`
`Numerous
`
`other
`
`courts
`
`are
`
`in accord.
`
`Scapa
`
`Dryer
`
`Cir.2016).
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`Fabrics,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Knight,
`
`299 Ga.
`
`286,
`
`290-291,
`
`788
`
`S.E.2d
`
`421
`
`(2016);
`
`Holcomb
`
`v. Georgia
`
`Pacific,
`
`L.L.C.,
`
`128 Nev.
`
`614,
`
`628-629,
`
`289
`
`P.3d
`
`188
`
`(2012);
`
`Bostic
`
`at 339.
`
`{¶ 23}
`
`In
`
`enacting
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96,
`
`the
`
`General
`
`Assembly
`
`demanded
`
`a
`
`showing
`
`greater
`
`than
`
`an undefined
`
`contribution
`
`to a total
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`that
`
`resulted
`
`in injury.
`
`Requiring
`
`only
`
`that
`
`the plaintiff
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`the
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`non-minimal
`
`and
`
`contributed
`
`to
`
`the
`
`total
`
`with
`
`the
`
`requirement
`
`plaintiff's
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`is inconsistent
`
`statutory
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`prove-based
`
`on the manner,
`
`proximity,
`
`frequency,
`
`and
`
`length
`
`of
`
`exposure-that
`
`a particular
`
`defendant's
`
`conduct
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`the
`
`injury.
`
`{¶ 24}
`
`Thus,
`
`we
`
`agree
`
`with
`
`the
`
`proposition
`
`of
`
`law
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`by Honeywell
`
`and
`
`hold
`
`that
`
`a theory
`
`of
`
`causation
`
`based
`
`only
`
`on
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`to various
`
`asbestos-containing
`
`products
`
`is
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`a particular
`
`defendant's
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a "substantial
`
`factor"
`
`under
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96.
`
`9
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`
`OF OHIO
`
`IV.
`
`Exposure
`
`to Asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`Products
`
`Was Not
`
`a Substantial
`
`Factor
`
`in Causing
`{¶ 25} We consider
`
`Kathleen
`
`Schwartz's
`
`Mesothelioma
`
`then
`
`whether
`
`Schwartz
`
`presented
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`her
`
`contracting
`
`mesothelioma.
`
`Applying
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96's
`
`manner,
`
`proximity,
`
`frequency,
`
`and
`
`length
`
`factors,
`
`we
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`he did
`
`not.
`
`{¶ 26}
`
`As
`
`discussed
`
`above,
`
`Schwartz's
`
`causation
`
`expert
`
`did
`
`not
`
`opine
`
`that
`
`to Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`her
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`causing
`
`disease,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`cumulative-exposure
`
`theory
`
`that
`
`he did
`
`rely
`
`on
`
`is an insufficient
`
`basis
`
`on which
`
`to
`
`find
`
`substantial
`
`causation.
`
`The
`
`other
`
`evidence
`
`offered
`
`about
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to Bendix
`
`products
`
`was
`
`likewise
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`causation
`
`under
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96.
`
`{¶ 27}
`
`Start with
`
`the manner
`
`of exposure.
`
`The
`
`only
`
`evidence
`
`relating
`
`to the
`
`manner
`
`of exposure
`
`was
`
`that
`
`Kathleen
`
`might
`
`have
`
`been
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`fibers
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`products
`
`when
`
`she walked
`
`through
`
`the
`
`garage
`
`during
`
`a brake
`
`job
`
`or
`
`after
`
`such
`
`had
`
`contact
`
`with
`
`her
`
`father's
`
`clothes
`
`one.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`exposures
`
`were
`
`likely
`
`to have
`
`occurred
`
`based
`
`on what
`
`"typically"
`
`happened,
`
`but
`
`there
`
`was
`
`no specific
`
`evidence
`
`of exposure
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`any
`
`particular
`
`brake
`
`job.
`
`Similarly,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`only
`
`limited
`
`evidence
`
`of
`
`proximity.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`no
`
`evidence
`
`that Kathleen
`
`ever
`
`assisted
`
`in any
`
`brake
`
`job
`
`or
`
`remained
`
`next
`
`to her
`
`father
`
`while
`
`he performed
`
`a brake
`
`job.
`
`The
`
`only
`
`evidence
`
`of proximity
`
`was
`
`her
`
`history
`
`through
`
`contact
`
`with
`
`her
`
`Most
`
`of walking
`
`the garage
`
`and
`
`of having
`
`father's
`
`clothes.
`
`significantly,
`
`however,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`of
`
`the
`
`frequency
`
`and
`
`length
`
`of
`
`exposure
`
`was
`
`quite
`
`limited.
`
`Schwartz
`
`did
`
`not
`
`show
`
`that
`
`Kathleen
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`products
`
`"on
`
`a
`
`regular
`
`basis
`
`over
`
`some
`
`extended
`
`period
`
`of
`
`time,"
`
`Lohrmann,
`
`782
`
`F.2d
`
`at 1162-1163.
`
`Rather,
`
`he merely
`
`showed
`
`that
`
`Kathleen
`
`could
`
`have
`
`been
`
`exposed
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`products
`
`when
`
`her
`
`father
`
`installed
`
`Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`on five
`
`to ten
`
`occasions.
`
`10
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`January
`
`Term,
`
`2018
`
`{¶ 28} We
`
`also
`
`must
`
`consider
`
`Kathleen's
`
`exposures
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`in the context
`
`of her
`
`exposures
`
`to asbestos
`
`from the products
`
`of other
`
`manufacturers.
`
`Her
`
`father
`
`came
`
`into
`
`contact
`
`with
`
`products
`
`containing
`
`asbestos
`
`nearly
`
`every
`
`day
`
`he worked-five
`
`to seven
`
`days
`
`a week,
`
`10 to 12 hours
`
`a day-for
`
`33 years.
`
`Without
`
`having
`
`changed
`
`out
`
`of his work
`
`clothes,
`
`he would
`
`pick
`
`Kathleen
`
`from
`
`school
`
`her
`
`in
`
`then
`
`up
`
`and
`
`take
`
`home
`
`the
`
`family
`
`car.
`
`He would
`
`be
`
`around
`
`Kathleen
`
`at
`
`home-again
`
`without
`
`having
`
`changed
`
`his
`
`clothes.
`
`And
`
`Kathleen
`
`assisted
`
`her mother
`
`in
`
`the
`
`family's
`
`laundry-which
`
`included
`
`Kathleen's
`
`father'
`father's
`
`work
`
`clothes.
`
`These
`
`regular
`
`exposures
`
`that
`
`Kathleen
`
`received
`
`as a result
`
`of
`
`her
`
`father's
`
`years
`
`of working
`
`as
`
`an
`
`electrician
`
`with
`
`products
`
`containing
`
`asbestos
`
`with
`
`irregular
`
`exposures
`
`that Kathleen
`
`might
`
`have
`
`contrasts
`
`strongly
`
`the limited
`
`and
`
`had
`
`as a result
`
`of her
`
`father's
`
`occasional
`
`brake
`
`jobs.
`
`{¶ 29}
`
`Thus,
`
`when
`
`we
`
`consider
`
`the manner,
`
`proximity,
`
`frequency,
`
`and
`
`duration
`
`of Katherine's
`
`exposures
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`products
`
`in relation
`
`to
`
`these
`
`"other
`
`factors
`
`which
`
`contribute
`
`in producing
`
`harm,"
`
`the
`
`2 Restatement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Law
`
`2d,
`
`Torts,
`
`Section
`
`433,
`
`at 432,
`
`we
`
`cannot
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`Schwartz
`
`established
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`that Kathleen's
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`products
`
`was
`
`in causing
`
`her mesothelioma.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`{¶ 30} Under
`
`the test
`
`for
`
`causation
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in R.C.
`
`2307.96,
`
`the motion
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict
`
`made
`
`by Honeywell
`
`International,
`
`Inc.,
`
`should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`granted.
`
`Therefore,
`
`the judgment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`court
`
`of appeals
`
`is reversed.
`
`Judgment
`
`reversed.
`
`O'CONNOR,
`
`C.J.,
`
`and O'DONNELL,
`
`KENNEDY,
`
`and FRENCH,
`
`JJ.,
`
`concur.
`
`FISCHER,
`
`J., concurs
`
`in judgment
`
`only,
`
`with
`
`an opinion.
`
`O'NEILL,
`
`J., dissents,
`
`with
`
`an opinion.
`
`11
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`
`OF OHIO
`
`FISCHER,
`
`J.,
`
`concurring
`
`in judgment
`
`only.
`
`{¶ 31}
`
`Although
`
`I agree
`
`with
`
`the majority
`
`that
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`should
`
`have
`
`granted
`
`the
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`made
`
`by
`
`appellant,
`
`Honeywell
`
`International,
`
`Inc.,
`
`I believe
`
`that
`
`the majority's
`
`analysis
`
`does
`
`not
`
`sufficiently
`
`clarify
`
`how
`
`courts
`
`should
`
`consider
`
`causation
`
`in cases
`
`like
`
`this
`
`in the
`
`future.
`
`I accordingly
`
`concur
`
`in the
`
`court's
`
`judgment
`
`reversing
`
`the judgment
`
`of
`
`the Eighth
`
`District
`
`only
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals.
`
`{¶ 32} While
`
`courts
`
`must
`
`follow
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96
`
`and
`
`triers
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`must
`
`consider
`
`the
`
`four
`
`factors
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in R.C.
`
`2307.96(B),
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`provides
`
`no
`
`definition
`
`for
`
`the
`
`term
`
`"substantial
`
`factor."
`
`This
`
`lack
`
`of
`
`clarity
`
`opens
`
`the
`
`door
`
`to
`
`inconsistent
`
`application
`
`of R.C.
`
`2307.96
`
`and
`
`gave
`
`rise
`
`to this
`
`appeal.
`
`{¶ 33}
`
`I
`
`agree
`
`with
`
`the majority
`
`that
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96's
`
`substantial-factor
`
`requirement
`
`if
`
`plaintiff
`
`that
`
`is not
`
`satisfied
`
`the
`
`shows
`
`merely
`
`the
`
`exposure
`
`was
`
`nonminimal
`
`or
`
`"above
`
`background"
`
`level
`
`and
`
`that
`
`it contributed
`
`to the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`total
`
`cumulative
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos.
`
`But
`
`the majority
`
`opinion
`
`is unclear
`
`about
`
`what
`
`distinguishes
`
`an
`
`exposure
`
`that
`
`constitutes
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`causing
`
`a
`
`plaintiff's
`
`injuries
`
`from
`
`an exposure
`
`that
`
`is an insubstantial
`
`factor.
`
`{¶ 34} Ultimately,
`
`appellee,
`
`Mark
`
`Schwartz,
`
`failed
`
`to offer
`
`testimony
`
`that
`
`conclusively
`
`linked
`
`Kathleen
`
`Schwartz's
`
`exposures
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`brakes
`
`Corporation
`
`manufactured
`
`by Bendix
`
`to her mesothelioma;
`
`however,
`
`I believe
`
`that
`
`this
`
`is a close
`
`case
`
`that
`
`highlights
`
`the
`
`need
`
`for
`
`a more
`
`precise
`
`definition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`term
`
`"substantial
`
`factor"
`
`as used
`
`in R.C.
`
`2307.96.
`
`Given
`
`the
`
`ambiguous
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`the
`
`term
`
`and
`
`the
`
`lack
`
`of
`
`guidance
`
`in
`
`the majority
`
`opinion,
`
`I encourage
`
`the General
`
`Assembly
`
`applying
`
`to
`
`consider
`
`amending
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`to provide
`
`clearer
`
`direction
`
`to
`
`courts
`
`R.C.
`
`2307.96.
`
`O'NEILL,
`
`J., dissenting.
`
`{¶ 35} Respectfully,
`
`I must
`
`dissent.
`
`12
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`January
`
`Term,
`
`2018
`
`{¶ 36}
`
`I would
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`to
`
`defeat
`
`the
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a
`
`directed
`
`verdict
`
`made
`
`by
`
`appellant,
`
`Honeywell
`
`International,
`
`Inc.
`
`Dr. Carlos
`
`Bedrossian
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is no known
`
`threshold
`
`of
`
`asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`"at which
`
`mesothelioma
`
`will
`
`not
`
`occur."
`
`Members
`
`of
`
`the
`
`decedent's
`
`family
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`dust
`
`originating
`
`in brakes
`
`manufactured
`
`by Bendix
`
`Corporation.
`
`The
`
`witnesses
`
`were
`
`number
`
`of
`
`Bendix
`
`the
`
`period
`
`of
`
`time
`
`able
`
`to relate
`
`the
`
`times
`
`brakes
`
`were
`
`changed,
`
`over
`
`which
`
`these
`
`exposures
`
`occurred,
`
`and
`
`the ways
`
`in which
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`was
`
`likely
`
`exposed.
`
`If
`
`every
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`can
`
`independently
`
`cause
`
`mesothelioma,
`
`surely
`
`exposures
`
`like
`
`the ones
`
`described
`
`the witnesses
`
`in this
`
`case
`
`by
`
`could
`
`be a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`an individual
`
`to later
`
`develop
`
`the
`
`illness.
`
`{¶ 37}
`
`But
`
`regardless
`
`of
`
`the
`
`every-exposure
`
`theory,
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`offered
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`for
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`to
`
`deny
`
`the motion
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict.
`
`The
`
`that
`
`evidence
`
`and
`
`length
`
`majority
`
`may
`
`believe
`
`the
`
`of manner,
`
`of
`
`exposure
`
`presented
`
`in the
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`was
`
`not
`
`proximity,
`"specific,"
`
`frequency,
`"limited,"
`
`was
`
`or was
`
`"quite
`
`limited."
`
`Majority
`
`opinion
`
`at ¶ 27.
`
`Yet,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`relevant
`
`to the
`
`statutory
`
`factors.
`
`Ultimately,
`
`a determination
`
`of
`
`the weight
`
`to give
`
`that
`
`evidence
`
`is
`
`for
`
`the
`
`jury-not
`
`for
`
`today's
`
`majority-to
`
`make
`
`based
`
`on
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`it hears
`
`about
`
`the
`
`circumstances
`
`of
`
`the
`
`exposures.
`
`We are categorically
`
`the wrong
`
`body
`
`to
`
`consider
`
`the weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence,
`
`and
`
`our
`
`review
`
`for
`
`the
`
`sufficiency
`
`of
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`ought
`
`evidence
`
`supporting
`
`a civil
`
`to be more
`
`circumspect.
`
`Chemical
`
`Bank
`
`of New York
`
`v. Neman,
`
`52 Ohio
`
`St.3d
`
`204,
`
`207-208,
`
`556 N.E.2d
`
`490
`
`(1990);
`
`see
`
`R.C.
`
`2503.43.
`
`We must
`
`decide
`
`whether
`
`the jury,
`
`having
`
`been
`
`presented
`
`with
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`in the record,
`
`could
`
`have
`
`reasonably
`
`decided
`
`that
`
`the decedent's
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`Bendix
`
`brakes
`
`was
`
`a
`
`substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`causing
`
`her
`
`mesothelioma.
`
`In
`
`doing
`
`so, we
`
`are
`
`required
`
`to
`
`"constru[e]
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`most
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of
`
`the
`
`party
`
`against
`
`whom
`
`the motion
`
`is
`
`directed."
`
`Civ.R.
`
`strongly
`
`50(A)(4).
`
`13
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2018 04:05 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109
`
`INDEX NO. 605517/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018
`
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`
`OF OHIO
`
`{¶ 38}
`
`This
`
`court
`
`must
`
`always
`
`be reluctant
`
`to overturn
`
`verdicts
`
`returned
`
`a jury.
`
`Our
`
`system
`
`of
`
`civil
`
`justice
`
`grew
`
`in fits
`
`and
`
`starts
`
`over
`
`centuries
`
`because
`
`by
`
`the
`
`dispassionate
`
`justice
`
`of
`
`an impartial
`
`jury
`
`has
`
`always
`
`been
`
`better
`
`for
`
`society
`
`as a
`
`than
`
`vengeful
`
`acts
`
`of
`
`self-help.
`
`not
`
`need
`
`the
`
`scales
`
`and
`
`risk
`
`whole
`
`revolt
`
`from
`
`the
`
`rule
`
`of
`
`law.
`
`We do
`
`to tip
`
`{¶ 39}
`
`Justice
`
`having
`
`been
`
`done
`
`in this matter
`
`the
`
`lower
`
`by
`
`courts,
`
`I dissent.
`
`Kelley
`
`& Ferraro,
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`James
`
`L. Ferraro,
`
`John Martin
`
`Murphy,
`
`Shawn
`
`M. Acton,
`
`Anthony
`
`Gallucci,
`
`and Matthew
`
`A. McMonagle,
`
`for
`
`appellee.
`
`McDermott,
`
`Will
`
`& Emery,
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`and Michael
`
`W. Weaver;
`
`and Willman
`
`& Silvaggio,
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`Steven
`
`G. Blackmer,
`
`and Melanie
`
`M.
`
`Irwin,
`
`for
`
`appellant.
`
`Bevan
`
`Patrick
`
`& Associates,
`
`L.P.A.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`Thomas
`
`W.
`
`Bevan,
`
`and
`
`Joshua
`
`P. Grunda,
`
`urging
`
`affirmance
`
`for
`
`amici
`
`curiae
`
`51 Concerned
`
`M. Walsh,
`
`Physicians,
`
`Scientists,
`
`and Scholars
`
`Shook,
`
`Hardy
`
`Regarding
`& Bacon,
`
`Causation
`
`of Asbestos-Related
`
`Disease.
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`and
`
`Victor
`
`E. Schwartz;
`
`and
`
`Crowell
`
`&
`
`Moring,
`
`L.L.C.,
`
`and William
`
`Coalition
`
`for
`
`Litigation
`
`Justice,
`
`L.
`
`Inc.
`
`Anderson,
`
`urging
`
`reversal
`
`for
`
`amicus
`
`curiae
`
`Sutter
`
`O'
`O'Connell
`
`Co.
`
`and Douglas
`
`and Ulmer
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`and
`
`James
`
`N. Kline

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

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.

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