Fouch v. Bicknell Supply Co.
326 Ga. App. 863
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Enrico Fouch worked as a sandblaster from 1996–2007 and was later diagnosed with silicosis and required a double-lung transplant.
- Fouch sued Mine Safety Appliances (manufacturer of Dustfoe respirators), Bicknell Supply, and Miles Supply (suppliers/distributors of canvas/non-air‑supplied hoods and sand) for strict liability (design defect) and negligent failure to warn.
- Evidence showed the only appropriate equipment for abrasive sandblasting was an air‑supplied hood; Fouch frequently used non‑air‑supplied canvas hoods and Dustfoe respirators instead.
- Experts (industrial hygienists and a warnings expert) testified that non‑air‑supplied hoods and the Dustfoe units exposed users to respirable silica above permissible limits (relying on longstanding studies like the Boeing Study) and that warnings/representations were misleading or inadequate.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding plaintiff failed to prove proximate cause (no specific exposure quantity) and that defendants had no duty to warn; plaintiff appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact on both causation and duty-to-warn and that expert proof of specific causation need not include precise dosage readings when disease (silicosis) is shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved proximate cause for manufacturers/suppliers | Fouch: experts show non‑air‑supplied hoods and Dustfoe respirators produced overexposure to respirable silica and contributed to silicosis; precise air‑sampling figures not required | Defs: plaintiff must prove actual quantity/air measurements of silica exposure from their products to establish specific causation | Reversed trial court — expert evidence showing a reasonable probability that defendants' products contributed to overexposure created a jury issue; no strict rule requiring precise dosage measurements when disease attributable to exposure is proven |
| Admissibility/weight of expert testimony on causation | Fouch: experts’ opinions (based on Boeing Study and discipline methods) are admissible and create factual disputes | Defs: experts insufficient or relied on improper/untested methodology (cited Butler) | Court admonished that trial court erred by discounting experts without a Daubert‑style analysis; experts here were undisputed for summary‑judgment purposes and raised factual issues |
| Duty to warn ultimate users vs. intermediaries | Fouch: manufacturers/suppliers had duty to warn; warnings/catalog representations were inadequate or misleading to small employers and end users | Defs: risks were generally known or employers (intermediaries) should have known — no duty to warn end user as matter of law | Reversed — factual issues exist whether dangers were obvious or known to intermediaries; learned‑intermediary balancing not performed and warnings may have been inadequate |
| Applicability of strict liability design‑defect claim against suppliers | Fouch: suppliers’ sale/representation of non‑air‑supplied hoods contributed to harm | Bicknell & Miles: did not manufacture product; thus no design‑defect liability | Court affirmed that suppliers were properly dismissed on strict‑liability design‑defect claims (no manufacturing) but retained negligent‑warning claims against suppliers where factual disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- MCG Health v. Barton, 285 Ga. App. 577 (standard for summary judgment review)
- John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 278 Ga. 747 (proximate‑cause principles in product cases with multiple tortfeasors)
- Fulmore v. CSX Transp., 252 Ga. App. 884 (toxic‑tort causation; disease can render inquiry into precise exposure moot)
- Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 310 Ga. App. 21 (Daubert analysis and exclusion of unreliable expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Carter v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 217 Ga. App. 139 (learned‑intermediary rule and limitations)
- R & R Insulation Svcs. v. Royal Indem. Co., 307 Ga. App. 419 (factors for duty‑to‑warn and foreseeability of user knowledge)
- Rodrigues v. Georgia‑Pacific Corp., 290 Ga. App. 442 (expert testimony standard: probable cause vs. mere possibility)