Oddo v. Asbestos Corp.
173 So. 3d 1192
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff William Oddo filed an asbestos exposure suit in June 2011, died of mesothelioma two months later; the case was prosecuted post‑mortem by his wife and sons as survival and wrongful death claims.
- At trial plaintiffs alleged occupational exposure (notably 24 years doing brake work at Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO)) and residential exposure (a 1972–73 driveway composed of Johns‑Manville fill allegedly containing talc contaminated by Southern Talc).
- Trial proceeded against Ford Motor Company and Southern Talc (Clariant/Sud‑Chemie); jury found Ford liable and assigned fault percentages 65% to Ford and 35% to Southern Talc, and found several nonparties negligent but assigned them 0% fault.
- The trial court entered judgment on the jury’s special‑interrogatory verdict; defendants moved for new trial and JNOV arguing the special verdict answers were internally inconsistent and that some expert testimony and evidence were improperly admitted/excluded.
- The appellate court held the jury’s answers were irreconcilably inconsistent as to Southern Talc and the empty‑chair defendant percentages, required de novo review for those issues, reversed liability as to Southern Talc, affirmed Ford’s liability (manifest error standard), and reallocated fault: Ford 65%, Union Carbide 25%, Higgins 10%.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could enter judgment despite inconsistent special‑verdict answers | Jury answers were consistent or any error was harmless; if error, appellate court should do de novo review only as needed | Trial court legally erred under La. C.C.P. art. 1813(E); it should have returned the jury or ordered new trial; inconsistent answers require reversal/remand | The jury’s answers were irreconcilably inconsistent; trial court erred by entering judgment and denying new trial; appellate court applied de novo review to tainted findings and manifest error review to Ford -related findings |
| Liability of Southern Talc (presence of talc/tremolite in driveway; causation) | Southern Talc sold talc to Johns‑Manville and its talc (tremolite‑contaminated) was present in the Johns‑Manville fill used in the driveway, causing exposure | Insufficient evidence that Southern Talc’s talc was in the driveway or that talc/tremolite exposure occurred at above‑background levels | On de novo review plaintiffs failed to prove Southern Talc’s product was present or caused above‑background asbestos exposure; reversed as to Southern Talc |
| Liability of Ford for brake‑dust exposure (expert admissibility and sufficiency of causation proof) | Brake‑dust exposures at JPSO (many on Ford vehicles/parts) were substantial contributors; experts Hammar and Finkelstein admissible on limited "above‑background" theory | Experts' causation theory was unreliable (Daubert); experts didn’t tie causation specifically to Ford products; JNOV warranted | Trial court properly conducted Daubert hearing, limited expert testimony to "above‑background" exposures; sufficient circumstantial and expert evidence supported jury finding against Ford; judgment as to Ford affirmed |
| Admissibility of asbestos‑bankruptcy trust claim forms | Forms relevant to show prior claims/exposures and impeachment | Forms are compromise/settlement‑type submissions to trusts and thus inadmissible under La. C.E. art. 408(A) | Trial court did not err in excluding the trust claim forms; exclusion was also harmless given de novo review of affected issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (establishes the "substantial factor" causation standard in asbestos cases)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial judge gatekeeper role for scientific expert admissibility)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (appellate de novo review where jury verdict tainted by legal error)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error/clearly wrong standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Palumbo v. Shapiro, 81 So.3d 923 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (Article 1813(E) requires returning jury or new trial when special‑verdict answers are internally inconsistent)
- Banks v. Children’s Hospital, 156 So.3d 1263 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (same: legal error when inconsistent special‑verdict responses and guidance on scope of appellate review)