Shaffer v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
2019 Ohio 5022
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Edward Shaffer worked as a merchant marine for U.S. Steel in 1960–61, primarily in engine and boiler rooms, performing duties that allegedly exposed him to asbestos; he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2016.
- The Shaffers sued multiple defendants asserting state asbestos claims and federal maritime claims (Jones Act and unseaworthiness) against U.S. Steel; the complaint was amended several times and Mr. Shaffer later died.
- U.S. Steel moved for summary judgment addressing federal claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for U.S. Steel on the federal claims, applying Ohio’s asbestos causation framework (Schwartz and R.C. 2307.96) and the substantial-factor test; the court also ruled on causation despite U.S. Steel having moved only on breach.
- The trial court initially omitted Civ.R. 54(B) certification but later added it; Diane Shaffer (individually and as executrix) timely appealed.
- The Ninth District reversed: it held the trial court erred by applying Ohio substantive law to federal maritime claims, by adjudicating a causation ground not raised by U.S. Steel, and by applying the wrong causation standards to both the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state (Ohio) law or federal maritime law governs Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims | Federal maritime law governs substantive issues; federal causation standards apply | Ohio asbestos law (Schwartz / R.C. 2307.96) may supplement or govern causation | Federal maritime substantive law controls; trial court erred applying Ohio law |
| Whether the trial court may grant summary judgment on a causation ground not raised by defendant | Error: granting SJ on an unraised ground deprived Shaffer of meaningful opportunity to respond | Trial court may address correct legal analysis sua sponte to "get it right" | Court cannot grant summary judgment on grounds not specified in the motion; reversible error |
| Proper causation standard for Jones Act negligence claim | Jones Act uses a relaxed "featherweight" standard: employer negligence need only have played any part, however slight | Trial court applied substantial-factor standard (R.C. 2307.96 / Schwartz) | Jones Act uses the relaxed "however slight" causation standard; applying substantial-factor standard was error |
| Proper causation standard for unseaworthiness claim | Unseaworthiness proximate cause is measured by a substantial-factor test under federal maritime law (Miller) | Trial court applied Schwartz / manner-proximity-length-duration analysis and rejected cumulative-exposure theory (relying on Lindstrom/Krik) | Unseaworthiness is governed by federal law; Miller substantial-factor standard applies and trial court erred relying on Schwartz/Lindstrom/Krik for unseaworthiness |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. Moore–McCormack Co., Inc., 317 U.S. 239 (recognizes state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Jones Act claims but federal law must be applied uniformly)
- Lindgren v. United States, 281 U.S. 38 (Jones Act preemption of inconsistent state approaches to seamen's liability)
- Panama R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (federal maritime law must be applied uniformly, unaffected by local common-law variations)
- Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (state courts must apply substantive federal maritime law)
- Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494 (Jones Act and unseaworthiness are distinct claims with different causation rules)
- Miller v. Am. President Lines, Ltd., 989 F.2d 1450 (6th Cir.) (unseaworthiness proximate cause measured by substantial-factor test)
- Perkins v. Am. Elec. Power Fuel Supply, Inc., 246 F.3d 593 (6th Cir.) (Jones Act "any part, however slight" causation standard)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prods. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.) (rejects cumulative-exposure theory for maritime product-liability claims)
- Krik v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 870 F.3d 669 (7th Cir.) (similar product-liability causation analysis to Lindstrom)
- Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc., 153 Ohio St.3d 175 (Ohio Supreme Court adopting R.C. 2307.96 causation framework in asbestos cases; relied on by trial court)
- State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 121 Ohio St.3d 507 (trial courts may not grant summary judgment on issues not raised in the motion)