Reiter v. Pneumo Abex, LLC
417 Md. 57
| Md. | 2010Background
- Petitioners are widows of Bethlehem Steel workers who allege lung cancer from asbestos in Respondents' products.
- Cases were consolidated into Adams and Conyers groups; three decedents: Johnson, Reiter, and Williams.
- Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Respondents; Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari to address substantial-factor causation and proof requirements.
- Court held: evidence supported exposure to asbestos dust at specific sites but insufficient to prove Respondents' products were used at those sites; affirmed summary judgment against Petitioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on substantial-factor causation was proper given evidence of crane-brake dust exposure. | Petitioners show exposure to asbestos-containing crane brakes at work. | Evidence fails to prove proximity to a specific manufacturer’s product at Petitioners’ sites; no direct product linkage. | No; evidence insufficient to show specific-site product use; affirmed. |
| Whether the court erred by requiring direct testimonial product identification over circumstantial evidence. | Circumstantial evidence suffices to infer exposure at specific sites. | Circumstantial evidence cannot replace product-specific identification at the site of exposure. | No; circumstantial evidence allowed but did not establish specific-site product use. |
| Whether market-share liability applies in this Maryland case. | Market-share liability could support causation given presence of products at site. | Maryland does not recognize market-share liability for asbestos claims. | No; market-share liability not recognized; not controlling. |
| Whether evidence at the Circuit Court showed Petitioners worked in proximity to specific crane-brake products used at Petitioners’ sites. | Plaintiffs presented witnesses placing exposure near specific cranes and brake linings. | Witnesses did not identify suppliers at Petitioners’ specific sites; insufficient site-specific product proof. | Partially yes on exposure at site, but no on site-specific product proof; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle-Picher Indus., v. Balbos, 326 Md. 179 (Md. 1992) (circumstantial evidence required for substantial-factor causation; Balbos factors: proximity, frequency, regularity, and product use)
- Balbos, 326 Md. 179 (Md. 1992) (circumstantial evidence test for substantial-factor causation in bystander asbestos cases)
- ACandS v. Godwin, 340 Md. 334 (Md. 1995) (interchangeable asbestos products; exposure can be enough when proximity exists)
- Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986) (circumstantial evidence standards for proving exposure to specific product)
- Rotondo v. Keene Corp., 956 F.2d 435 (3d Cir. 1992) (factors for proximity and regularity of exposure to a specific product)
- Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1990) (presence in building not enough; need proximity to product use)
- McNeal v. Eaton Corp., 2002 Pa. Super. 281, 806 A.2d 899 (Pa. Super. 2002) (fact pattern involving crane brakes and employer exposure; distinguishable due to site-specific proof)
- ACandS v. Godwin, 340 Md. 334, 667 A.2d 116 (Md. 1995) (interchangeability of asbestos products; factual distinction relevant to causation)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Pransky, 369 Md. 360, 800 A.2d 722 (Md. 2002) (scope of bystander exposure and proximity considerations)