Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group
171 A.3d 432
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Decedent Wayne Bagley worked at Sikorsky (1979–1980 blade shop); FM-37, an adhesive sold by Wyeth Holdings (successor to American Cyanamid), containing 8.6% asbestos in cured form, was used and sometimes sanded during manufacture.
- Plaintiff (executrix Marianne Bagley) sued under Connecticut’s Product Liability Act alleging strict liability (ordinary consumer expectation test) and negligence for selling an unreasonably dangerous product and failing to test/warn; jury awarded verdict and damages for wrongful death and loss of consortium.
- Evidence at trial: coworker testimony that sanding FM-37 produced visible dust and that Bagley was present in areas where dust was generated; experts testified that asbestos causes mesothelioma, that low exposures can cause disease, and that FM-37 contained asbestos, but no witness performed testing on FM-37 to measure respirable fiber release.
- Defense argued plaintiff lacked proof that sanding FM-37 released respirable asbestos fibers in quantities capable of causing mesothelioma and that expert proof specific to FM-37 was required; trial court denied directed verdict and post-trial motions.
- Connecticut Supreme Court reversed: held plaintiff failed to prove that respirable asbestos fibers were emitted from FM-37 when used at Sikorsky, and that expert testimony specific to the product was required to establish that technical fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove that sanding FM-37 released respirable asbestos fibers (dangerousness/cause) | Bagley: ordinary jurors can infer sanding a product containing asbestos produces asbestos-laden dust; consumer expectation test applies; no expert needed | Wyeth: release of respirable fibers from a cured, modified epoxy adhesive is a technical question beyond common knowledge and requires product-specific expert proof | Held: Expert testimony was required; plaintiff failed to present testing or expert proof that FM-37 emitted respirable fibers sufficient to cause mesothelioma, so proof was inadequate |
| Whether plaintiff proved causation (that FM-37 exposure caused mesothelioma) | Bagley: circumstantial evidence of presence in sanding areas plus expert testimony that any asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma sufficed | Wyeth: no evidence FM-37 dust contained respirable fibers; other asbestos exposures existed; need product-specific causation proof | Held: Causation not established because missing link — no competent evidence FM-37 released respirable fibers Bagley could have inhaled |
| Whether FM-37 was unreasonably dangerous under strict liability (ordinary consumer expectation) | Bagley: product was dangerous beyond ordinary expectation because sanding produced visible dust from an asbestos-containing product | Wyeth: whether sanding releases respirable fibers is not within ordinary consumer knowledge; product complexity requires expert proof | Held: Plaintiff failed to prove FM-37 was unreasonably dangerous because she did not prove it released respirable asbestos fibers when used as at Sikorsky |
| Whether a new trial is required because of recent product-liability decisions (Bifolck / Izzarelli) | Bagley: if Court applies new standards, she should get a new trial to supply expert proof under those standards | Wyeth: established preexisting law already required expert proof on technical questions; no new-trial entitlement | Held: No new trial — requirement for expert testimony on this technical issue existed before Bifolck and Izzarelli; appellate reversal and judgment for defendant directed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., 324 Conn. 402 (2016) (clarified product-liability tests and scope of consumer-expectation vs. risk-utility)
- Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 321 Conn. 172 (2016) (narrowed application of consumer-expectation test; emphasized risk-benefit analysis)
- Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 (1997) (elements of strict product liability: product defective and defect caused injury)
- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Deere & Co., 302 Conn. 123 (2011) (standard for appellate review of directed verdicts and jury verdict sufficiency)
- In re R.O.C., 131 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. App. 2004) (no expert proof of respirable fiber release from coatings/sanding: summary judgment for defendants)
- John Crane, Inc. v. Puller, 899 A.2d 879 (Md. App. 2006) (expert testing showing fiber release from gaskets/packing supported causation inference)
- Becker v. Baron Bros. Coliseum Auto Parts, Inc., 649 A.2d 613 (N.J. 1994) (laboratory identification of respirable fibers in brake shoes created triable issue on causation)