Zickuhr v. Ericsson, Inc.
962 N.E.2d 974
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Decedent Richard Campbell diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 and died in 2009; plaintiffs sued Ericsson, Inc. for negligence related to asbestos exposure from defendant's cables.
- Plaintiffs are Campbell's widow and estate; Ericsson was associated with Anaconda/Continental asbestos-containing wiring.
- The decedent worked at U.S. Steel's South Works (1955–1985), performing tasks that stripped and repaired asbestos-containing cables, generating dust.
- Wires at issue were originally manufactured by Anaconda, later Continental; Ericsson acquired Anaconda in 1980 and Continental’s asbestos-containing products continued to be sold.
- At trial, plaintiffs presented witness testimony (including decedent and Raymond Scott) describing asbestos-containing cables and dust exposure; defendant contested the presence of asbestos and causation.
- Jury awarded $1.5 million to Campbell's estate; posttrial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were denied; Ericsson appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation and presence of asbestos in defendant's cables | Campbell exposed daily to asbestos-containing Anaconda/Continental wiring | No evidence that Ericsson cables contained asbestos or caused mesothelioma | Evidence supports causation; jury reasonably found asbestos-containing wiring caused injury |
| Exclusion of OSHA regulations at trial | OSHA regs relevant to exposure; exclusion prejudiced plaintiffs | Regulations apply to employers, not manufacturers; irrelevant | Exclusion proper; OSHA regs do not apply to Ericsson as a manufacturer |
| Closing arguments alleging corporate wealth | Statements biased jury unfairly against plaintiffs | Closing fallacy; not reversible error | Any prejudice cured by trial court’s timely admonition; no new trial required |
| Rule 213 disclosure and Dikman testimony | Dikman testimony within Rule 213 scope and disclosures | Disclosures insufficient regarding wire testimony; surprise risk | No abuse; Sullivan six-factor test supports admission; disclosure deemed adequate |
| Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict/new trial | Verdict supported by substantial evidence of exposure and causation | Verdict against weight of evidence; lack of proof | Verdict not against manifest weight; denial of N.O.V./new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thacker v. UNR Industries, Inc., 151 Ill.2d 343 (1992) (causation in asbestos cases; substantial-factor standard; frequency-regularity-proximity)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill.2d 445 (1992) (standard for denying/awarding judgment notwithstanding the verdict)
- Wehmeier v. UNR Industries, Inc., 213 Ill.App.3d 6 (1991) (frequency-regularity-proximity approach in proving exposure)
- Nolan v. Weil-McLain, 233 Ill.2d 416 (2009) (reaffirmed causation principles in asbestos exposure cases)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill.2d 100 (2004) (Rule 213 disclosure standards and factors for nondisclosure sanctions)
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill.2d 1 (2003) (offer of proof requirements following evidentiary rulings)
- Rosier v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 367 Ill.App.3d 559 (2006) (arguments waiver when not supported by authorities)
- Ramirez v. City of Chicago, 318 Ill.App.3d 18 (2000) (improper closing arguments; need for prejudice to justify reversal)
- Chakos v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 169 Ill.App.3d 1018 (1988) (discretionary review of trial court decisions on closing statements)