Rost, Richard, M., Exec. v. Ford Motor Co., Aplt.
56 EAP 2014
| Pa. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Rost estate and Sipley) sued multiple defendants including Ford for causing decedent’s mesothelioma; cases were consolidated at trial despite materially different exposure histories.
- Mr. Rost had long-term industrial asbestos exposure and a separate, relatively short (~3 months) low-dose exposure to Ford brake/friction products at a garage.
- Plaintiff’s specific-causation expert, Dr. Arthur Frank, testified using a risk-based approach, stating every exposure increases risk but did not quantify Mr. Rost’s dose or compare Ford exposure to cumulative exposures.
- The trial jury returned a verdict against Ford; the Superior Court affirmed. The present opinion is a dissent by Chief Justice Saylor.
- The dissent emphasizes scientific indeterminacy in pinpointing a single causative exposure for mesothelioma and accepts risk-contribution proof, but argues plaintiffs must meaningfully assess a defendant’s contribution within cumulative dose.
- The dissent also finds trial consolidation of unrelated mesothelioma claims a structural error that likely prejudiced defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for specific/substantial-factor causation in asbestos mesothelioma | Rost: risk-based proof (each exposure increases risk); expert testimony sufficient without precise dose quantification | Ford: any-exposure theory is insufficient; plaintiff must show defendant’s exposure was a substantial contributor within cumulative dose | Dissent: Accepts risk-based causation generally but requires meaningful comparative/cumulative dose assessment to prove substantial-factor causation |
| Sufficiency of Dr. Frank’s testimony to establish substantial causation | Rost: Dr. Frank considered exposure history, plausibility, studies and concluded Ford exposure was a substantial factor | Ford: Dr. Frank failed to quantify dose or distinguish general/any-exposure statements from a substantiality opinion | Dissent: Dr. Frank’s opinion collapsed into an any-exposure view; without benchmarks or proportional assessment it is insufficient |
| Role of frequency, regularity, and proximity (FRP) test | Rost: FRP may impose too high a burden for some asbestos victims; not strictly required where risk-based proof used | Ford: FRP is a useful screening for exposure identification and context for substantiality | Dissent: FRP is a rough screening tool fit for summary judgment/product identification, not a substitute for expert dose-based causation analysis |
| Consolidation of unrelated mesothelioma claims | Plaintiffs: consolidation justified by common disease and efficiency | Ford: consolidation of materially different exposure cases prejudiced defendants, distorted arguments and juror perception | Dissent: Consolidation was structural error that likely prejudiced defendants; would warrant new trial (but also finds failure of proof against Ford) |
Key Cases Cited
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 615 Pa. 504, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012) (accepts risk-based proof for asbestos causation but rejects any-exposure theory and requires consideration of cumulative exposure when assessing substantiality)
- V-J Auto Parts Co. v. Gregg, 596 Pa. 274, 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (discusses exposure assessment and product-chain liability principles)
- Moeller v. Garlock Sealing Techs., LLC, 660 F.3d 950 (6th Cir. 2011) (compares defendant exposure to plaintiff’s other substantial exposures; lack of quantification undermines substantial-cause inference)
- Martin v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 561 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2009) (criticizes any-exposure substantiality opinions and endorses consideration of other contributing factors)
- Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992) (earlier case treating comparative risk differently; discussed as a contrasting approach)
- Summers v. CertainTeed Corp., 886 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005) (articulates the bucket-in-the-ocean analogy and critiques any-exposure causation reasoning)