Dependable Abrasives, Inc. v. Pierce, 156 So. 3d 891

Background

Plaintiff Richard Pierce developed terminal silicosis after years as a sandblaster and sued multiple defendants, including Dependable Abrasives, alleging its product (Diamond Blast sand) lacked adequate warnings and caused his disease.
At trial Pierce presented medical and industrial-hygiene experts describing silicosis, the latency and fatal nature of respirable crystalline silica, and that Dependable’s bag warning was ‘‘grossly inadequate.’n
Pierce identified a Diamond Blast bag but could not reliably identify the sand’s color or when/where he used it; Dependable’s former president testified the company’s sand was brown, sold primarily regionally, and was not sold to several employers where Pierce worked.
The jury found Pierce’s injuries were silica-related but (11–1) found Dependable’s product did not cause his injury/was not defective; the trial court later ordered a new trial as against the overwhelming weight of the evidence with respect to Dependable’s warning.
On interlocutory appeal the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial, focusing on the threshold question of product exposure/causation between Diamond Blast and Pierce’s silicosis.
The Court reversed: because Pierce failed to prove by a preponderance that Dependable’s product supplied any appreciable amount of the silica causing his disease, the jury verdict for Dependable was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence such that a new trial was required	Pierce argued the warning was inadequate and the evidence (expert and his identification of the bag) supported a new trial	Dependable argued Pierce failed to prove exposure to its product, so causation was not established and the verdict should stand	Held for Dependable: insufficient evidence of exposure/causal link; new trial was an abuse of discretion
Whether product exposure (causation) was proven	Pierce pointed to his recollection of the Diamond Blast bag and expert testimony on warning inadequacy	Dependable emphasized inconsistencies in Pierce’s testimony (sand color, locations/timing) and lack of sales records linking product to his workplaces	Held: Pierce failed to prove he was appreciably exposed to Dependable’s sand; causation not established
Whether adequacy of the warning was dispositive if exposure not proven	Pierce asserted warning inadequacy independently established defect	Dependable argued adequacy is moot absent causation/exposure to product	Held: adequacy is irrelevant without causal link; threshold is exposure/causation
Whether granting a new trial was an abuse of discretion	Pierce: jury ignored expert testimony and abused its duty	Dependable: jury credibility determinations are entitled to deference; verdict does not shock conscience	Held: trial court abused discretion in granting new trial; jury verdict deferred to, not against overwhelming weight

Key Cases Cited

3M Co. v. Johnson, 895 So.2d 151 (Miss. 2005) (failure-to-warn claim requires proof that the inadequate warning proximately caused the injury)
Mississippi Valley Silica v. Reeves, 141 So.3d 377 (Miss. 2014) (plaintiff must adduce evidence from which a jury can conclude defendant supplied an appreciable amount of the harmful product)
Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 134 So.3d 706 (Miss. 2014) (conflicting evidence on origin of hazardous product is for the jury to resolve)
Moore ex rel. Moore v. Miss. Valley Gas Co., 863 So.2d 43 (Miss. 2003) (plaintiff bears burden to show defendant’s product caused plaintiff’s injuries)
Johnson v. St. Dominics-Jackson Mem’l Hosp., 967 So.2d 20 (Miss. 2007) (standard of review for new-trial motion is abuse of discretion)
Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (appellate role as thirteenth juror when reviewing weight-of-evidence challenges)