Dionne v. ABB, Inc.
N14C-11-062 ASB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Clarence Dionne worked at Bay Area Medical Center and alleges asbestos exposure from Cleaver-Brooks boilers and replacement parts.
- Contested exposures: scraping/replacing rope gaskets on boiler doors and removing/replacing white insulation inside boiler doors.
- Dionne testified he scraped rope gaskets he believed contained asbestos ~8 times and supervised ~8 other gasket changes; gasket changes took ~20 minutes each.
- As department head from 1975, Dionne ordered replacement parts (through a secretary) and testified replacement gaskets/insulation came from Cleaver-Brooks.
- Evidence shows Cleaver-Brooks sold boilers with asbestos gaskets/rope into the late 1970s and sold replacement asbestos-containing parts.
- Procedural posture: Cleaver-Brooks moved for summary judgment on causation; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cleaver-Brooks' products were a legal cause of Dionne's asbestos injury | Dionne was exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets/insulation from Cleaver-Brooks boilers and replacement parts he ordered and handled | Dionne only speculates parts contained asbestos and lacks specific maintenance history tying these two boilers to asbestos parts | Denied summary judgment — factual record permits a jury to infer Cleaver-Brooks' products were a substantial factor in causing injury |
| Whether evidence of product composition and ordering is sufficient to avoid summary judgment | Testimony that Cleaver-Brooks sold asbestos parts and that Dionne ordered and handled those parts supports an inference of exposure | Argues the lack of direct proof the specific replacement parts contained asbestos requires speculation | Court: circumstantial evidence and testimony allow reasonable juror to infer exposure; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Applicability of Wisconsin causation standard | Wisconsin requires plaintiff prove defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing harm | Defendant contends even under Wisconsin law plaintiff cannot show substantial factor absent proof parts contained asbestos | Court applied Wisconsin substantial-factor test and found genuine factual dispute for jury |
| Whether plaintiff’s supervisory role and frequency of gasket work suffice to show meaningful exposure | Dionne’s repeated direct work and supervision of gasket changes and lengthy insulation work show repeated opportunities for exposure | Defendant says frequency alone is insufficient without proof of asbestos in those parts | Court: frequency/duration plus evidence of Cleaver-Brooks’ asbestos parts supports a reasonable inference for causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Morden v. Continental AG, 611 N.W.2d 659 (Wis. 2000) (describes Wisconsin product-defect causation principles)
- Zielinski v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 661 N.W.2d 491 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (defines substantial-factor causation language)
- Merco Distrib. Corp. v. Commercial Police Alarm Co., 267 N.W.2d 652 (Wis. 1978) (explains substantial-factor test)
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (summary judgment standard under Delaware law)
- Nutt v. A.C. & S., Inc., 517 A.2d 690 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986) (asbestos litigation and causation discussion)