Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Roy Knight
332 Ga. App. 82
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Roy Knight (diagnosed 2009 with malignant mesothelioma) sued Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., and Union Carbide; wife claimed loss of consortium. Knight alleged repeated asbestos exposures from 1959–mid‑1980s, including work at Scapa (1967–1973) near looms using asbestos yarn and near asbestos pipe/boiler insulation removals.
- Jury considered exposures tied to two defendants and numerous non‑parties; found Scapa 40% at fault, Union Carbide 40%, and Georgia Pacific 20%; total verdict produced judgment of $4,187,068.95 against Scapa.
- Scapa appealed, raising challenges to sufficiency of evidence, admissibility/reliability of plaintiffs’ expert (Dr. Jerrold Abraham), absence of a Daubert hearing, failure to allocate fault to certain nonparties, various jury charge and evidentiary rulings, and punitive damages submission.
- Trial evidence included testimony about asbestos use at Scapa, plant records (including a 1977 memo about switching away from asbestos felts), and expert opinions on causation tying cumulative asbestos exposure to mesothelioma.
- The majority affirmed: evidence supported liability; expert testimony admissible; no mandatory pretrial gatekeeping hearing required; jury allocation to nonparties was discretionary; any erroneous charge language on strict liability was harmless; punitive damages submission supported by evidence of conscious indifference. A dissent would have excluded the expert’s "any exposure" methodology and ordered a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of exposure and duty | Knight: testimony, plant documents, and expert linking Scapa exposures to mesothelioma show Scapa released asbestos and Knight was exposed | Scapa: no evidence Knight was exposed at Scapa and lacked superior knowledge | Affirmed — evidence, when construed for verdict, supported liability and denial of directed verdict |
| Reliability/admissibility of expert causation testimony (Daubert) | Knights: Dr. Abraham’s opinions (cumulative causation; no known safe threshold) reliably connect Scapa exposures to disease | Scapa: Abraham’s "any exposure"/linear non‑threshold methodology is untestable, lacks error rate, and is junk science | Majority: admitted testimony; methodology and opinion sufficiently reliable for jury; Butler distinguishable. Dissent: would exclude and reverse |
| Requirement of pretrial Daubert hearing | Knights: hearing discretionary; trial court had material (deposition, reports) to assess reliability | Scapa: court erred by not holding a pretrial gatekeeping hearing | Held: no mandatory hearing required; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Allocation of fault to nonparties | Knights: jury could apportion among parties/nonparties under OCGA §51‑12‑33(c) | Scapa: jury was required to allocate fault to other nonparties shown by evidence | Held: appellant bore burden to prove rational basis; jury may accept or reject evidence — no error |
| Jury charge on strict liability and omitted instructions | Knights: charge was appropriate for negligence-based product liability; did not rely on strict liability theory | Scapa: court improperly instructed on strict liability and omitted instructions (no duty to inspect; surrender of control) | Held: any strict‑liability language harmless (term not used); omitted instructions not required given evidence of Scapa knowledge; charge as whole adequate |
| Submission of punitive damages | Knights: evidence of wanton disregard and conscious indifference justified submission | Scapa: punitive damages unsupported | Held: some evidence supported punitive damages submission; not error to submit to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial‑court gatekeeping standard for scientific expert testimony)
- John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 278 Ga. 747 (Ga. 2004) (in multi‑exposure asbestos cases, defendant’s conduct must be a contributing cause; differing culpability among joint tortfeasors)
- Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 310 Ga. App. 21 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (court upheld exclusion of an "any exposure" expert opinion in a de minimis exposure context)
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 615 Pa. 504 (Pa. 2012) (rejected "any exposure" theory as unreliable for specific causation)
- Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Assoc. Milk Producers, 191 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1999) (criticized "any exposure" methodology under Daubert)
- Rental Equip. Group v. MACI, LLC, 263 Ga. App. 155 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (presumption favoring validity of jury verdicts; directed verdict standard)
- Eco‑Clean, Inc. v. Brown, 324 Ga. App. 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of directed verdict/j.n.o.v.)