Wagoner v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
813 F. Supp. 2d 771
E.D. La.2011Background
- Decedent James Wagoner, Jr. died in 2009 from alleged benzene-related blood disorders; plaintiff Macie Wagoner sued Radiator Specialty Co. (Liquid Wrench) and Exxon Mobil (Varsol) in ED La under diversity.
- Radiator issued Liquid Wrench with FHSA-compliant warnings; the court previously found FHSA preemption on warnings, granting summary judgment on failure-to-warn claims but denying other claims.
- Plaintiff asserts AEMLD claims under Alabama law (Alabama Extended Manufacturers' Liability Doctrine) and non-AEMLD theories (negligence, wantonness, fraudulent misrepresentation/suppression).
- Radiator argues AEMLD claims are precluded by adequate warnings; plaintiff argues AEMLD does not subsume non-AEMLD claims and that there is evidence of negligence, wantonness, and fraud.
- Louisiana choice-of-law analysis applies to Exxon Mobil claims; Radiator’s Alabama-based claims governed by Alabama law; plaintiff's cross-motions deal with AEMLD posture and causation theories.
- Court’s disposition: Radiator’s summary-judgment motion granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff’s cross-motion denied; Exxon Mobil’s summary-judgment motions partly granted/denied; Daubert and other motions addressed later; remaining claims hinge on negligence/wantonness and causation theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does adequate warning preclude AEMLD liability for Radiator? | Wagoner contends warnings may not abolish a design defect claim and that AEMLD does not subsume non-AEMLD claims. | Radiator asserts adequate warnings defeat AEMLD liability under Tillman and Casrell framework. | Adequate warnings preclude AEMLD liability. |
| Do the warnings defeat Radiator's assumption-of-risk defense under Alabama law? | Warnings alone do not prove subjective awareness necessary for assumption of risk. | Adequate warnings plus plaintiff's awareness support the defense. | Assumption of risk not established as a matter of law. |
| Are plaintiff's non-AEMLD claims subsumed by the AEMLD claim? | AEMLD does not automatically subsume negligence and other non-AEMLD claims. | AEMLD subsumes non-AEMLD claims. | AEMLD does not subsume non-AEMLD claims. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to support plaintiff's negligence and wantonness claims against Radiator? | Evidence of Raffinate benzene content, safety data sheets, and warnings supports negligence/wantonness. | Evidence insufficient or hinges on disputed facts; steps taken to warn may show reasonable care. | Remains a triable issue; summary judgment denied for negligence and wantonness. |
| Should plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on AEMLD be granted? | There is evidence benzene poses health risks and safer substitutes exist; no defenses overcome causation. | AEMLD defense and evidentiary issues negate partial summary relief. | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 871 So.2d 28 (Ala. 2003) (adequate warnings can obviate liability for design defects under AEMLD)
- Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976) (AEMLD elements and defense framework)
- Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1976) (AEMLD defense, including lack of causal relation and assumption of risk)
- Horn v. Fadal Machining Centers, LLC, 972 So.2d 63 (Ala. 2007) (assumption-of-risk requires plaintiff's actual awareness of the specific danger)
- Wakeland v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 996 F. Supp. 1213 (S.D. Ala. 1998) (cases discussing merging of AEMLD with other claims)
- Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 259 La. 599, 250 So.2d 754 (La. 1971) (pre-LPLA governing principles for Louisiana product liability)