Petrina v. Allied Glove Corp.
46 A.3d 795
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Petrina, executrix of the estate of Joseph Petrina, sues asbestos manufacturers over exposure causing mesothelioma and death.
- Union Carbide moved for summary judgment on Sept. 28, 2008 for lack of product identification.
- Petrina offered deposition testimony that Deceased inhaled asbestos from Gold Bond joint compound by National Gypsum (bankrupt).
- National Gypsum interposed that Union Carbide was exclusive supplier of asbestos for Gold Bond 1967–1975, per 1984 Tollett interrogatories; answers verified by Robert Oberkircher (deceased).
- Petrina planned to call National Gypsum’s corporate representative at trial to testify consistent with the Tollett answers and, if needed, admit them as prior inconsistent statements under Rule 803.1.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in Union Carbide’s favor on December 30, 2008; appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review and admissibility of interrogatory answers | Petrina: proper standard and admissible interrogatories | Union Carbide: hearsay in interrogatories not admissible | Reversed; proper standard and admissibility recognized |
| Rule 803.1(1) applicability to corporate prior statements | Rule 803.1(1) applies to National Gypsum as declarant | Rule requires declarant at trial; Oberkircher cannot testify | Rule 803.1(1) applies to corporate declarant; admissible if corporate rep testifies |
Key Cases Cited
- Samarin v. GAF Corp., 391 Pa. Super. 340 (Pa. Super. 1989) (reliance on third-party hearsay to defeat summary judgment rejected)
- Botkin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 907 A.2d 641 (Pa. Super. 2006) (incapacitated witness’s daughter cannot substitute for direct knowledge)
- Isaacson v. Mobile Propane Corp., 315 Pa. Super. 42 (Pa. Super. 1983) (hospital record invalid due to lack of direct knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Lively, 530 Pa. 464 (Pa. 1992) (prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence under highly reliable circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 558 Pa. 478 (Pa. 1999) (expands use of prior statements in evidence)
- Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 895 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for summary judgment; plenary review)