Fisher v. Alliance Machine Co.
192 Ohio App. 3d 90
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Fisher Sr. developed mesothelioma after working as an electrician at Reactive Metals from 1957 to 1963 and died in 2006; his estate filed suit against multiple asbestos suppliers, including A. Louis and Clark.
- A. Louis and Clark moved for summary judgment, arguing no competent evidence that Fisher was exposed to their products and that their products were not a substantial factor in causing the illness.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants; the estate appealed arguing genuine issues of material fact remained.
- Ohio Civ.R. 56 governs summary judgment; since 2004, RC 2307.96(B) imposes specific factors for proving substantial factor causation in asbestos cases.
- deposition testimony described exposure to asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, and insulation around pipefitters and electricians; A. Louis supplied some gaskets and packing; Clark’s involvement was challenged by lack of evidence tying its products to Fisher’s exposure.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed Clark’s summary judgment but reversed as to A. Louis and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark’s summary judgment was proper | Estate showed Fisher worked near Clark’s asbestos products, creating exposure. | No competent evidence that Clark’s products were present or exposed to Fisher or that exposure was a substantial factor. | Clark's summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether A. Louis’s products were a substantial factor in causing Fisher’s mesothelioma under RC 2307.96(B) | Evidence showed Fisher was exposed to A. Louis gaskets and packing; proximity and usage near Fisher created material fact. | Evidence insufficient to show exposure to A. Louis’s products or that such exposure was a substantial factor. | A. Louis’s summary judgment reversed; fact question remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 653 N.E.2d 1196 (Ohio 1995) (defines substantial factor in proximate causation; adopts Lohrmann framework with caution)
- Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986) (multidefendant asbestos context; supports proximity/frequency/length factors)
- Gozzard v. Reactive Metals, not applicable (not applicable) (used in context of factual discussion; not an official reporter citation)