Amato, T. v. Bell & Gossett
116 A.3d 607
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Two consolidated asbestos trials: Amato (plaintiff Thomas Amato; verdict $2.5M) and Vinciguerra (estate of Frank Vinciguerra; verdict $2.3M) alleging Cranite (sheet gasket) exposure caused mesothelioma. Crane Co. appealed adverse judgments.
- Key factual disputes: whether Cranite was present at plaintiffs’ workplaces decades earlier and whether Cranite posed a dangerous asbestos exposure risk.
- Crane sought to admit expert testimony (psychologist Dr. Weaver) to challenge long‑past identifications and memory reliability; trial court excluded it as unnecessary and intruding on juror credibility assessments.
- Crane argued trial court should offset verdicts by payments plaintiffs received from non‑party settlements/trusts and sought discovery of those sources; trial court denied offset/discovery for non‑parties not found joint tortfeasors.
- Crane challenged the trial court’s failure‑to‑warn jury instruction under Tincher v. Omega Flex, and sought instructions on the "sophisticated user" defense and remittitur for alleged duplicative consortium/society awards; court rejected these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on memory/identification (Dr. Weaver) | Jury can evaluate reliability; expert unnecessary | Expert needed to explain suggestibility and long‑term memory flaws in product ID | Exclusion affirmed: jurors can assess memory reliability without such expert; testimony would improperly invade credibility function. |
| Offset for non‑party settlements / discovery of settlement sources | Plaintiffs: verdict stands; settlements with non‑parties not reducing verdict unless joint tortfeasors | Crane: non‑party payments and trust recoveries should offset verdict to prevent double recovery and require discovery | Affirmed for plaintiffs: no offset for settlements by non‑parties not adjudicated/joined as joint tortfeasors; pro rata setoff only when settling parties were released pro rata or found joint tortfeasors. |
| Failure‑to‑warn jury instruction post‑Tincher | Plaintiffs: Tincher limited and inapplicable to warning claims; charge was appropriate given evidence | Crane: Tincher returns reasonableness/unreasonably dangerous to jury; trial should have given a state‑of‑the‑art/reasonableness warning instruction | No reversal: Tincher applies by analogy, but Crane’s evidence argued Cranite posed no risk (not that warnings were reasonable); requested instruction not supported by evidence, so no prejudice. |
| Sophisticated‑user defense & compulsory nonsuit (Amato) | Plaintiffs: Navy was sophisticated user but Crane did not discharge any duty | Crane: Navy/similar employers are sophisticated users, so Crane could rely on employer warnings and be relieved of liability | Affirmed for plaintiffs: Pennsylvania has not adopted §388 sophisticated‑user defense as a recognized bar to strict liability; even if it had, Crane failed to show it provided warnings to the Navy, so instruction/nonsuit not warranted. |
| Admission of out‑of‑court stipulation re: Navy use (Amato) | Plaintiffs: stipulation relevant to show Navy used non‑QPL gasket materials | Crane: stipulation hearsay and irrelevant | Waived by Crane: co‑defendant objected but Crane did not; issue waived on appeal. |
| Remittitur for alleged duplicative loss‑of‑consortium and loss‑of‑society (Vinciguerra) | Crane: wrongful death and loss‑of‑consortium awards duplicate post‑death society damages | Plaintiff: awards compensate distinct pre‑death (loss of consortium) and post‑death (loss of society) losses | Denied: damages are distinct (survival/pre‑death vs. wrongful death/post‑death), so no double recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (overruled Azzarello’s rule excluding negligence‑style reasonableness from jury in strict liability; jury may consider whether product is unreasonably dangerous)
- Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978) (prior rule treating unreasonably dangerous as legal question for court under §402A)
- Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 186 A.2d 300 (Pa. 1962) (settlement by a third party treated as partial satisfaction in narrow factual context where indemnity barred by immunity)
- Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000) (application of UCATA and distinctions between pro tanto and pro rata setoffs for settling tortfeasors)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (permitted expert testimony on eyewitness ID in criminal context; Court limited to criminal eyewitness identification)
- Charles v. Giant Eagle Markets, 522 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1987) (settlement does not mean jury verdict caps total recovery; settlements can be a separate accurate measurement of obligations)