Harris v. Ford Motor Co.
N14C-03-220 ASB
| Del. Super. Ct. | May 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Nathanial Harris worked as a farmer/maintenance worker at Cobb Farm (NC) from 1949–1992 and died of lung cancer in 2015; claims asbestos exposure from 1955–1979 while working on Ford tractors.
- Harris testified by video deposition (Oct. 21, 2014) as the sole product-identification witness.
- He performed gasket, clutch, and brake work on multiple Ford tractor models (8N, 9N, 600, and later larger models), but frequently could not recall brands, manufacturers, or where parts were purchased.
- He remembered Fel-Pro gaskets for one model and, once upon a leading question, that a tractor part bore a "Ford" stamp, but could not link asbestos-containing parts specifically to Ford.
- Applying North Carolina substantive law, the court required identification of a defendant’s asbestos-containing product and proof of regular, non-minimal exposure to that specific product.
- The court concluded the evidence was too speculative to link Harris’s asbestos exposure to Ford products and granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff identified an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Ford | Harris contends he worked on Ford tractors and on gaskets/clutches/brakes that exposed him to asbestos | Ford argues Harris cannot identify asbestos-containing parts as Ford-made or show the parts were original | Court: Harris failed to identify a Ford asbestos product; summary judgment for Ford |
| Whether plaintiff showed exposure to a specific product on a regular, extended basis | Harris asserts repeated gasket/clutch/brake work over years at Cobb Farm amounted to regular exposure | Ford argues lack of specific product identity, frequency tied to Ford parts, or evidence parts were Ford originals makes exposure speculative | Court: Exposure evidence is speculative and insufficient under NC law |
| Whether defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing harm | Harris maintains his maintenance work caused asbestos exposure leading to disease | Ford argues no causal link because product identification and regular contact with a Ford asbestos product are not proven | Court: No substantial-factor causation shown; summary judgment appropriate |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Harris relied on his deposition as sole ID witness; disputed facts exist but identification is inadequate | Ford moved for summary judgment based on insufficient evidence to meet NC standards for asbestos cases | Court: Summary judgment granted for Ford (plaintiff cannot meet required evidentiary threshold) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (summary judgment standards under Delaware law)
- Nutt v. A.C. & S., Inc., 517 A.2d 690 (Del. Super. 1986) (asbestos litigation evidentiary principles)
- Wilder v. Amatex Corp., 336 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. 1985) (requirement to prove exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product)
- Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 1995) (exposure must be more than casual; regular exposure over extended period required)