R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., v.
2014 Del. LEXIS 339
| Del. | 2014Background
- Michael Galliher contracted mesothelioma from exposure to Vanderbilt’s NYTAL talc while employed at Borg Warner in Ohio.
- Vanderbilt conceded talc contained asbestiform minerals but disputed causation, blaming Borg Warner or others.
- Jury returned a verdict for Galliher of $2,864,583.33 with Vanderbilt 100% liable.
- Trial court did not give Borg Warner’s proposed duty-of-care instruction and limited jury guidance on employer fault.
- During trial, inadmissible hearsay and inflammatory statements by witnesses were admitted, including claims Vanderbilt employees were liars and that Vanderbilt bought senators.
- The court concluded these errors required reversal and remand for a new trial; post-judgment-interest issue deemed moot on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of care instruction for Borg Warner | Galliher argues Borg Warner’s duty of care should be defined to reflect Ohio law. | Vanderbilt contends the court should instruct on Borg Warner’s duty as premise owner and employer. | Reversed for failure to instruct on Borg Warner’s duty of care. |
| Admission of prejudicial, inadmissible evidence | Galliher asserts evidence was properly admitted; no risk of prejudice. | Vanderbilt contends admissions were prejudicial and warranted a mistrial. | New trial required due to prejudicial, improperly admitted statements. |
| Impact of improper cross-examination statements | Galliher argues statements did not affect outcome beyond prejudice. | Vanderbilt asserts curative instructions were sufficient. | Mistrial/new trial warranted; curative measures insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Servs., P.A., 913 A.2d 519 (Del. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial)
- Cuonzo v. Shore, 958 A.2d 840 (Del. 2008) (standards for reversible error and jury instructions)
- Koutoufaris v. Dick, 604 A.2d 390 (Del. 1992) (permissible jury instruction standards)
- North v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 704 A.2d 835 (Del. 1997) (substantive duty and admissibility considerations in asbestos cases)
- DeAngelis v. Harrison, 628 A.2d 77 (Del. 1993) (criteria for abuse of discretion in denying new trial)