Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight
299 Ga. 286
| Ga. | 2016Background
- Roy Knight, a sheet-metal worker, performed intermittent independent-contractor work at Scapa Dryer Fabrics’ Waycross facility (1967–1973); some plant insulation and yarn contained asbestos.
- Knight was diagnosed with mesothelioma ~40 years later; he and his wife sued Scapa (and others) alleging negligent asbestos exposure at Waycross caused the disease.
- A Ware County jury returned a verdict against Scapa, apportioning 40% fault to Scapa and awarding >$4 million; Scapa appealed.
- Central disputed facts: whether Knight was ever exposed at Waycross above ambient/background levels and, if so, whether that exposure was more than de minimis.
- The trial court admitted Dr. Jerrold Abraham’s expert testimony that any exposure above background contributes to cumulative asbestos dose and thus is a cause of mesothelioma; Scapa challenged admissibility.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the admissibility issue and reversed the Court of Appeals/trial court ruling, excluding Abraham’s unqualified causation opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Knight) | Defendant's Argument (Scapa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Abraham’s opinion that any non‑zero asbestos exposure is a cause of mesothelioma | Cumulative‑exposure theory: each exposure above ambient contributes to cumulative dose; any such exposure therefore can be a cause | Theory is unreliable/junk science and legally irrelevant because it would allow causation based on de minimis exposure | Excluded: opinion did not "fit" Georgia causation law; allowing it would permit causation from de minimis exposure and confuse jury |
| Gatekeeper duty under former OCGA § 24‑9‑67.1(b) (Daubert framework) | Expert qualifies and methodology assists jury | Trial court must exclude unreliable or non‑fitting testimony | Trial court abused discretion by admitting testimony that failed the relevance/fit requirement despite expert qualifications |
| Whether cumulative‑exposure testimony can ever be admissible | Such testimony may be probative of causation generally | Only admissible if tied to reliable evidence showing exposure was more than de minimis or if opinion is qualified/conditioned on meaningful exposure | May be admissible if expert reliably links cumulative theory to evidence showing > de minimis exposure or conditions causation on that finding; here Abraham did not do so |
| Prejudice and need for reversal | Knights argued expert was proper and verdict stands | Scapa argued erroneous admission went to heart of causation and requires reversal | Reversal required because improper opinion went to core disputed issue of causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial judge must act as gatekeeper for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (gatekeeping obligation applies to all expert testimony)
- John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 278 Ga. 747 (Georgia requires exposure to be a contributing factor; de minimis exposures insufficient)
- Dubois v. Brantley, 297 Ga. 575 (trial court’s gatekeeper role under former OCGA § 24‑9‑67.1)
- Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (discussing apportionment and comparative fault principles)