Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc.
2016 Ohio 3175
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Mark Schwartz (individually and as executor) sued Honeywell (successor to Bendix) after Kathleen Schwartz died of peritoneal mesothelioma, alleging asbestos exposure from Bendix brake products and secondary exposure from her father's occupational clothing and home brake work.
- Trial proceeded against Honeywell alone; jury found Honeywell 5% responsible and awarded $20,232,798.21 in total damages, resulting in a judgment of $1,011,639.92 against Honeywell after apportionment.
- Honeywell moved in limine to exclude (1) certain expert opinions (Daubert), (2) testimony endorsing an “every significant exposure” or “each exposure” causation theory, and (3) an amicus/medical article (the Welch article); the court denied those motions.
- Plaintiffs presented expert testimony (Drs. Bedrossian and Guth) that: chrysotile asbestos can cause pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma; there is no known safe exposure threshold; brake servicing releases large numbers of respirable fibers; and cumulative household/secondary exposures from father’s brake work and workplace asbestos materially contributed to decedent’s disease.
- Honeywell’s motions for directed verdict on general/specific causation and on design-defect were denied; after compensatory verdict the trial court sua sponte granted a directed verdict for Honeywell on punitive damages; the appellate court affirmed the compensatory judgment but reversed and remanded for a new punitive-damages trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Bedrossian’s causation testimony | Bedrossian relied on medical literature, pathology experience, and cumulative-exposure analysis showing Bendix brakes contributed to mesothelioma | Testimony rested on untested "each-exposure" theory and lacked reliable methodology | Admission was proper under Evid.R. 702; court found methodology reliable and weight for jury |
| Admissibility of Dr. Guth’s industrial-hygienist opinions | Guth’s qualitative exposure assessment, testing of similar brakes, and literature support increased risk from brake dust and household transfer | Guth’s testing wasn’t in home garages; no quantitative dose-response; inadmissible speculation | Admission proper under Evid.R. 702; qualitative methods and analogous testing admissible; weight for jury |
| Directed verdict on causation (general & specific) | Experts showed chrysotile causes mesothelioma and Bendix brake/secondary exposures were substantial factors per R.C. 2307.96(B) factors | Plaintiffs failed to prove exposure to Bendix product was a substantial factor or to quantify dose | Denial of directed verdict affirmed: reasonable minds could differ; sufficient evidence on manner, proximity, frequency to go to jury |
| Directed verdict on punitive damages | Plaintiffs: evidence showed Bendix knew risks, delayed warnings, and continued asbestos brakes despite alternatives — clear and convincing evidence of flagrant disregard | Honeywell: contested facts undermine punitive claim; judge granted directed verdict after compensatory phase | Appellate court reversed: substantial competent evidence existed to submit punitive issue to a jury; remand for new punitive-damages trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St.3d 351 (Ohio 2007) (expert testimony admissibility standard under Evid.R. 702)
- Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (Ohio 1998) (Daubert gatekeeping and flexible reliability inquiry)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (factors for scientific reliability)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (appellate review of expert reliability)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert principles apply to all expert testimony)
- State v. Nemeth, 82 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio 1998) (expert credibility/weight for trier of fact)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (Ohio 1995) (plaintiff must prove exposure to each defendant’s product as a substantial factor)
- Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review for directed verdicts)
- Estate of Cowling v. Estate of Cowling, 109 Ohio St.3d 276 (Ohio 2006) (directed verdict principles: court must not weigh evidence or credibility)