Zickuhr v. Ericsson
2011 IL App (1st) 103430
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Decedent Richard Campbell died of mesothelioma in 2009 after exposure to asbestos-containing cables wired at U.S. Steel South Works (1955–1984).
- Plaintiffs alleged Ericsson, Inc. (through its Anaconda/Continental lineage) manufactured or sold asbestos-containing wire and failed to warn.”
- Evidence showed decedent’s daily duties included stripping and repairing asbestos-containing cables, generating dust in a dusty work environment.
- Witnesses (decedent, Raymond Scott) linked asbestos-containing reels labeled “Asbestos Continental Cable Company” to defendant’s products.
- Defendant was the sole remaining defendant after settlements; the jury awarded $1.5 million to plaintiffs, later reduced by setoffs; posttrial motions denied.
- OSHA regulations were excluded; plaintiffs’ closing argument alleged a “win” for defendant was cured by the court; Rule 213 disclosure issue regarding Dr. Dikman was litigated and resolved in favor of admissibility
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: can plaintiff prove exposure to defendant’s asbestos caused mesothelioma? | Campbell exposed to asbestos-containing Anaconda/Continental wire. | No proof defendant’s cable contained asbestos or caused disease. | Evidence supported substantial-factor causation; verdict affirmed. |
| Admission of OSHA regulations evidence | OSHA regs show labeling requirements; admissible. | Regulations apply to employers, not manufacturers; irrelevant. | Exclusion proper; OSHA regs not applicable to defendant. |
| Closing argument prejudice | Damages range and wealth references biased jury. | Judge cured prejudice by admonishing jury. | Cure effective; no reversible prejudice; trial court did not err. |
| Rule 213 disclosure of Dr. Dikman | Disclosure adequate to encompass causation in hypothetical. | Disclosures did not mention wire/cable. | No abuse of discretion; Sullivan six-factor test supports admission. |
| Judgment notwithstanding the verdict/new trial | Evidence supports causation and damages; not against weight. | Evidence insufficient or improperly admitted. | JNOV and new-trial motions properly denied; verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thacker v. UNR Industries, Inc., 151 Ill. 2d 354 (Ill. 1992) (causation in asbestos cases; substantial-factor and proximity tests)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (Ill. 1992) (standard for judgments notwithstanding the verdict)
- Wehmeier v. UNR Industries, Inc., 213 Ill. App. 3d 6 (Ill. App. 1991) (frequency, regularity, proximity approach in asbestos exposure cases)
- Nolan v. Weil-McLain, 233 Ill. 2d 416 (Ill. 2009) (causation burden in asbestos-specific actions)
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2003) (offer of proof requirement for evidentiary rulings on limine)