Thurmon v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc.
61 F. Supp. 3d 1280
N.D. Ga.2014Background
- Decedent William H. Thurmon, a Rayonier mill worker, died of mesothelioma in December 2009 after 31 years of service.
- Plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from Crane valves, gaskets, and packing used or supplied by Crane.
- Evidence from Copeland and Trull suggests Crane asbestos-containing components were present and replaced during maintenance at Rayonier.
- Plaintiffs contend replacements released asbestos fibers, causing decedent’s exposure.
- Court presumes Crane valves originally contained asbestos but lacks proof that the specific replacement parts were Crane’s own products.
- Overall, the transferee court remanded to decide Georgia law’s bare metal defense and proximate causation in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia recognizes the bare metal defense in asbestos cases. | Plaintiffs argue Georgia does not recognize bare metal defense. | Crane contends bare metal defense is viable under Georgia law. | Bare metal defense recognized as viable under Georgia law. |
| Can plaintiffs prove exposure to the defendant’s original or replacement Crane parts? | Co-workers identify exposure but not that parts were Crane-made. | No evidence that replacement parts were Crane-manufactured/supplied. | Insufficient evidence that decedent exposure came from Crane products. |
| Is proximate causation shown under Georgia law for post-sale alterations/replacements? | Plaintiff argues proximate causation from Crane components. | Bare metal defense negates causation where replacement parts aren’t Crane’s. | Georgia proximate causation evidence insufficient for Crane. |
| Whether Crane could be liable under Georgia law for injuries from asbestos-containing parts not manufactured by Crane. | Manufacturer should be liable for latent defects known to Crane. | Liability limited to Crane’s own products; third-party parts barred by bare metal defense. | Crane not liable for injuries from non-Crane replacement parts. |
| Should summary judgment be granted to Crane on the bare metal issue? | Yes; summary judgment granted for Crane on grounds of insufficient evidence linking to Crane products. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackston v. Shook and Fletcher Insulation Co., 764 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1985) (proof of a particular defendant’s asbestos-containing products essential; proximate causation required)
- Hoffman v. AC & S, Inc., 248 Ga.App. 608, 548 S.E.2d 379 (Ga. App. 2001) (plaintiff must prove exposure to a defendant’s products; cannot rely on conjecture)
- Reid v. BMW of North America, 430 F.Supp.2d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (post-sale injuries must be tied to a defendant’s product for proximate causation)
- O’Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335, 266 P.3d 987 (Cal. 2012) (bare metal defense; manufacturer not liable for third-party asbestos-containing parts)