Union Carbide Corp. v. Nix
2014 Miss. LEXIS 271
Miss.2014Background
- Nix diagnosed with mesothelioma after exposure to Union Carbide asbestos products; suit for inadequate warning under Mississippi Products Liability Act.
- Union Carbide labeled warnings starting 1968; OSHA 1972 standards mandated warnings and specific language; Montello executed distribution and labeling decisions.
- Internal Union Carbide documents in 1980s–1990s acknowledged asbestos risks and proposed stronger warnings beyond OSHA.
- 1998 Partial Release exempted mesothelioma claims not diagnosed at signing; Nix later diagnosed in 2010 and sued Union Carbide in 2011.
- Trial produced compensatory award and a punitive damages verdict; jury allocated fault, with Union Carbide assigned 25% of fault.
- Trial court awarded costs and attorney’s fees; post-judgment interest set at eight percent; post-trial motions challenged JNOV on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn under learned intermediary vs. direct user | Nix argues duty to warn not discharged; employer lacked adequate warning to end user. | Carbide contends warnings to purchaser were sufficient; reliance on sophisticated user defenses. | No complete bar; jury could find inadequate warning despite some purchaser communications. |
| Adequacy of warning and OSHA compliance | Warning was inadequate despite OSHA language; failed to state cancer risk and proper protective actions. | Compliance with OSHA supports reasonableness of warning. | OSHA compliance not dispositive; jury could find the warning inadequate. |
| Reliance on warning as proximate cause | Nix read the warning; evidence supports reliance or lack thereof on given warning. | No reliance if plaintiff read but did not adjust behavior; warning ineffective due to impracticability. | Reliance not necessary where warning deficient; otherwise, reading may suffice in some contexts. |
| Punitive damages and release | Punitive damages warranted by actual malice or gross negligence; release did not bar punitive claims due to mesothelioma exception. | Release bars punitive damages as conduct tied to the underlying exposure; evidence limited to disease. | Punitive damages award reversed; remanded for new trial on punitive damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Services Auto. Ass’n v. Lisanby, 47 So.3d 1172 (Miss. 2010) (standard for reversing denial of JNOV)
- 3M Co. v. Johnson, 895 So.2d 151 (Miss. 2005) (guidance on evidence sufficiency and appellate review)
- Johnson v. Miss. Valley Silica Co., 895 So.2d 166 (Miss. 2005) (warnings foreseeability and duty concepts)
- Accu-Fab & Constr., Inc. v. Ladner, 778 So.2d 766 (Miss. 2001) (OSHA regulations admissible to show reasonableness)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tackett, 841 So.2d 1107 (Miss. 2003) (Daubert/Kumho framework for expert testimony reliability)
- Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. v. Fortenberry, 530 So.2d 688 (Miss. 1988) (issue of expert testimony for technical evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping for reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible application of Daubert factors)
- Palmer v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 904 So.2d 1077 (Miss. 2005) (reliance and adequacy of warnings analysis)
- Crowe v. Smith, 603 So.2d 301 (Miss. 1992) (costs of special master and appellate cost allocation)
- City of Tupelo, 94 So.3d 256 (Miss. 2012) (Daubert/Kumho standard and expert testimony gatekeeping context)
- Eastman, 92 So.3d 666 (Miss. 2012) (sophisticated-user defense discussion and statutory interpretation)