CertainTeed Corp. v. Dexter
2010 Ky. LEXIS 299
Ky.2010Background
- Dexter, a long-time pipefitter, was exposed to asbestos from many defendants’ products over a 40-year career and smoked heavily; he sued 19 defendants for products liability and negligence; after his death, his estate pursued claims with some defendants settling, leaving CertainTeed and Garlock as trial defendants; at the first trial the jury found liability but apportioned no fault to empty-chair defendants; the trial court granted a CR 59.01(f) new trial due to lack of fault apportionment to empty-chair defendants; the Court of Appeals reversed the new-trial order; the Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to determine the quantum of proof required to apportion fault to empty-chair defendants; on remand the second trial apportioned fault including empty-chair defendants, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the first judgment, prompting discretionary review on the proper standard and quantum of proof for apportionment against empty-chair defendants to justify a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for a CR 59.01 new-trial order | Court should defer strongly to trial court's factual findings. | Appellate review can substitute judgment for trial court. | Clear-error and substantial-evidence standard with high deference to trial court; Court of Appeals.erred in applying abuse of discretion only. |
| Quantum of proof to apportion fault to empty-chair defendants | Evidence of exposure and causation against empty-chair defendants suffices for apportionment. | No-fault or insufficient evidence to allocate fault to empty-chair defendants. | Evidence was substantial to support apportionment against empty-chair defendants; trial court did not misapply the standard. |
| Knowledge of risk and failure to warn as liability basis | Industry knowledge and warnings (or lack thereof) support liability for empty-chair defendants. | Constructive knowledge insufficient without direct proof of liability. | Evidence showed knowledge of asbestos dangers and failure to warn; supports fault against empty-chair defendants. |
| Necessity of precise exposure duration for apportionment | Exact duration/amount of exposure per defendant unnecessary for apportionment. | Necessary to quantify each defendant's precise contribution. | Substantial evidence supports apportionment without perfect, defendant-specific exposure data. |
Key Cases Cited
- Floyd v. Carlisle Const. Co., Inc., 758 S.W.2d 430 (Ky.1988) (apportionment when joint tortfeasors are present or at fault)
- Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Parrish, 58 S.W.3d 467 (Ky.2001) (requires finding fault before apportionment; impacts settling/nonparties)
- Allen v. City of Louisville, 385 S.W.2d 179 (Ky.1964) (preserves deference to trial court on new-trial rulings)
- Turfway Park Racing Ass'n v. Griffin, 834 S.W.2d 667 (Ky.1992) (standard for reviewing CR 59.01 rulings; deference to trial court)
- Bayless v. Boyer, 180 S.W.3d 439 (Ky.2005) (describes deference and review framework for new-trial decisions)
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2003) (assistive standard for substantial-evidence review in expert/causation contexts)