throbber
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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
`
`finding
`
`of substantial
`
`causation
`
`for
`
`each
`
`defendant
`
`with
`
`a theory
`
`that
`
`says
`
`every
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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,
`
`(July
`
`21,
`
`2017).
`
`Haskins
`
`v. 3M Co.,
`2017 WL 3118017,
`
`*7
`
`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
`
`332,
`
`341
`
`(Tex.2014).
`
`Presumably,
`
`Dr.
`
`Bedrossian
`
`excludes
`
`minimal
`
`exposures
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 07/27/2018 02:41 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 275
`
`INDEX NO. 620180/2016
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/27/2018
`
`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
`
`whole
`
`than
`
`vengeful
`
`acts
`
`of
`
`self-help.
`
`not
`
`need
`
`the
`
`scales
`
`and
`
`risk
`
`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
`
`W.
`
`Patrick
`
`& Associates,
`
`L.P.A.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`Thomas
`
`Bevan,
`
`and
`
`Joshua
`
`P. Grunda,
`
`urging
`
`affirmance
`
`for
`
`amici
`
`curiae
`
`51 Concerned
`
`M. Walsh,
`
`Physicians,
`
`Scientists,
`
`and Scholars
`
`Regarding
`
`Causation
`
`of Asbestos-Related
`
`Disease.
`
`Shook,
`
`Hardy
`
`& Bacon,
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`and
`
`Victor
`
`E. Schwartz;
`
`and
`
`Crowell
`
`&
`
`Moring,
`
`L.L.C.,
`
`and William
`
`L.
`
`Anderson,
`
`urging
`
`reversal
`
`for
`
`amicus
`
`curiae
`
`Coalition
`
`for
`
`Litigation
`
`Justice,
`
`Inc.
`
`Sutter
`
`O'
`O'Connell
`
`Co.
`
`and Douglas
`
`and Ulmer
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`and
`

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