Morin v. AutoZone Northeast, Inc.
79 Mass. App. Ct. 39
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Bedford Fruit Company owned by Geraldina and Anthony Medeiros, operated 1952–1991; they were actively involved in daily operations.
- Geraldina Medeiros died in 2005 from malignant mesothelioma; Kathleen Morin, her daughter, is administratrix and filed wrongful death suit in 2005.
- Morin named ~40 defendants, mainly auto parts manufacturers/retailers, alleging exposure to asbestos from Bedford Fruit’s work.
- Judge granted summary judgment to 12 defendants, denied to 3; Morin appealed the three remaining: AutoZone Northeast, Orleans Auto Supply, and Great Dane.
- Court reversed as to AutoZone and Orleans but affirmed as to Great Dane, addressing causation and exposure standards in asbestos claims.
- Core issue: whether Morin presented triable evidence that exposure to defendants’ asbestos-containing parts contributed to Geraldina’s mesothelioma under a relaxed causation standard
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morin showed triable exposure to AutoZone's asbestos products. | Morin showed Bedford Fruit purchased asbestos parts from ADAP; Geraldina in close proximity to the dust. | Need more than de minimis exposure; no direct proof Geraldina inhaled from AutoZone products. | Yes; triable exposure found, reversal for AutoZone. |
| Whether Morin showed triable exposure to Orleans's asbestos products. | Bedford Fruit bought asbestos-containing parts from Orleans; exposure near the pit and dust migration. | Exposure evidence insufficient to meet causal standard; minimal/insignificant exposure. | Yes; triable exposure found, reversal for Orleans. |
| Whether Morin showed triable exposure/causation for Great Dane trailer brakes. | Trailer may have had asbestos brakes; potential exposure during replacements. | Exposure was minimal; insufficient to show more than de minimis exposure. | No; summary judgment for Great Dane upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Keene Corp., 31 Mass. App. Ct. 157 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991) (set forth causation framework for asbestos claims, including substantial factor standard)
- Roehling v. National Gypsum Co., 786 F.2d 1225 (4th Cir. 1986) (evidence may show exposure in proximity to defendant’s products and drift of dust)
- In re Hawaii Fed. Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1992) (recognizes multiple exposures and long latency in asbestos cases)
- Kreppein v. Celotex Corp., 969 F.2d 1424 (2d Cir. 1992) (multiple exposures and causation standards in asbestos litigation)
- O’Connor v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 401 Mass. 586 (1988) (discusses diminished requirement for ‘but for’ causation in asbestos cases)