Floyd, J. v. Astenjohnson, Inc.
3663 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Floyd, Jr., as executor, sued AstenJohnson alleging his father (decedent) developed mesothelioma from asbestos in dryer felts while employed at Scott Paper (1951–1984).
- AstenJohnson (successor to Asten-Hill/Asten Group) admitted it manufactured some asbestos-containing dryer felts until about 1980 but disputed that the decedent was exposed to its products.
- Plaintiff’s primary factual evidence was his own deposition (he worked with his father 1977–1984) and deposition excerpts from former Scott Paper employees (Koronkiewicz, Golden) taken in unrelated cases.
- Plaintiff’s son testified the work of replacing dryer felts was "dusty" but could not identify the felts’ brand, source of dust, or confirm asbestos content; no deposition of the decedent was taken.
- Koronkiewicz testified in other cases that some felts at Scott Paper were AstenJohnson’s and that some felts contained asbestos, but he did not identify the decedent as someone who worked in close proximity to those specific Asten felts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for AstenJohnson for failure to produce evidence that the decedent inhaled asbestos from AstenJohnson’s products; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from AstenJohnson dryer felts | Floyd argued his deposition plus co-worker depositions (Koronkiewicz, Golden) allow a reasonable jury to infer decedent inhaled asbestos from AstenJohnson felts | AstenJohnson argued the evidence did not identify its products as those the decedent worked with, nor show frequency, regularity, or proximity of exposure | Court held plaintiff failed to adduce evidence tying the decedent to AstenJohnson’s asbestos-containing felts or to establish frequency/regularity/proximity; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Allied Signal, Inc., 963 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2008) (co-worker identification can create fact issue when co-worker links plaintiff directly to product exposure)
- Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556 (Pa. Super. 2014) (plaintiff must show inhalation of fibers from specific manufacturer’s product)
- Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 1988) (established frequency, regularity, proximity standard)
- Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (frequency/regularity/proximity applied evaluatively, not as rigid thresholds)
- Sterling v. P & H Mining Equip., 113 A.3d 1277 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summary judgment appropriate where evidence is only belief and co-worker testimony lacking frequency/regularity/proximity)
- E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)