Rost, Richard, M., Exec. v. Ford Motor Co., Aplt.
56 EAP 2014
| Pa. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Richard M. Rost (executor) and Erin Sipley (executrix) sued Ford Motor Company alleging brief (three-month) occupational exposure to Ford brakes contributed to decedent Richard Rost’s mesothelioma.
- Trial occurred before this Court decided Betz v. Pneumo Abex (2012); plaintiff’s expert relied in part on an “each and every exposure” theory without a detailed comparative assessment of other workplace exposures (e.g., Metropolitan Edison).
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs; the Superior Court affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority ultimately resolved the case (majority action is the subject of dissenting opinions).
- Justice Baer (dissenting) argues Gregg v. V‑J Auto Parts and Betz require comparative assessment of exposures and would remand for a new trial so plaintiff can present testimony consistent with Betz.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of “each and every exposure” causation theory | Rost relied on expert testimony that any exposure could be deemed causative | Ford challenged the theory as legally and scientifically insufficient | Majority excluded/discounted the theory; dissent (Baer) says Betz requires comparative proof and remand for new trial so plaintiff can comply |
| Role of comparative assessment in proving substantial-factor causation | Rost: expert testimony linking exposures to disease suffices without a detailed comparative weighting | Ford: plaintiff must compare exposures (potency, concentration, duration) to show any one exposure was a substantial factor | Betz (per dissent) requires comparative assessment; dissent would apply Betz and remand |
| Application of Gregg’s “frequency, regularity, and proximity” test | Rost: brief exposure to Ford brakes could be shown sufficient at trial | Ford: three months was minimal and not frequent/regular/proximate enough to be a substantial factor | Dissent treats Gregg’s test as part of necessary comparative inquiry; would require new trial to apply it along with Betz |
| Remedy (post‑Betz evidence deficiency) | Rost: allow verdict to stand; evidence presented was sufficient | Ford: verdict should not stand absent comparative assessment; alternatively JNOV | Majority took a position adverse to plaintiffs (granting JNOV or disposing without remand); Justice Baer would reverse and remand for a new trial to allow compliant expert proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (endorses consideration of frequency, regularity, and proximity at summary judgment in asbestos cases)
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012) (Frye exclusion upheld and comparative assessment of exposures required for substantial-factor causation)
- Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992) (prior appellate language on each-exposure causation discussed and distinguished)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (established the Frye standard for admissibility of novel scientific expert evidence)