BOLEY, EXR., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, APPELLEE, ET AL.
No. 2009-0542
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted December 15, 2009—Decided June 10, 2010
125 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-Ohio-2550
{11} Cheryl Boley, executor of the estate of Mary Adams, and Mary‘s husband, Clayton Adams, appeal from a decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals that affirmed summary judgment in favor of Clayton‘s former employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, in connection with their claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, loss of consortium, statutory products liability, fraudulent concealment and representation, wrongful death, and punitive damages allegedly arising from Mary‘s exposure to asbestos when she laundered Clayton‘s work clothes in their home. The issue presented for consideration in this appeal is whether
{12} Upon review, we conclude that pursuant to
{13} Goodyear employed Clayton Adams as a pipefitter from 1973 to 1983 at its St. Marys, Ohio facility. His employment caused him to work with asbestos-containing materials, and he brought asbestos dust home on his clothing. Mary Adams allegedly breathed in the dust when she shook out his work clothes prior to laundering them.
{14} In March 2007, Andrea Arrossi, M.D., diagnosed Mary with malignant mesothelioma. Following this diagnosis, Clayton and Mary filed suit against more than 200 defendants, including Goodyear, alleging that asbestos exposure caused Mary‘s condition and resulted from Goodyear‘s negligence in allowing asbestos to be carried off its property. Mary died of mesothelioma in July 2007. Thereafter, the trial court substituted the executor of Mary‘s estate, Cheryl Boley, as a party to this case.
{15} Goodyear then moved for summary judgment in accordance with
{16} The court of appeals affirmed, holding that
{17} Clayton and Cheryl Boley appealed to this court, and we agreed to address the following proposition of law:
{18} “Revised Code Section 2307.941(A) does not apply to ‘take home exposure’ asbestos cases against a family member‘s employer who exposed the employee to asbestos and that family member brought asbestos home on their clothing causing other family members to become exposed to asbestos, and develop an asbestos related disease.”
{19} On appeal, Clayton and Boley contend that
{110} In response, Goodyear maintains that the phrase “on the premises owner‘s property” in
{111} Accordingly, we are called upon to consider whether
R.C. 2307.941
{12} The General Assembly enacted
{13}
{14} “(A) The following apply to all tort actions for asbestos claims brought against a premises owner to recover damages or other relief for exposure to asbestos on the premises owner‘s property:
{15} “(1) A premises owner is not liable for any injury to any individual resulting from asbestos exposure unless that individual‘s alleged exposure occurred while the individual was at the premises owner‘s property.
{16} “(2) If exposure to asbestos is alleged to have occurred before January 1, 1972, it is presumed that a premises owner knew that this state had adopted safe levels of exposure for asbestos and that products containing asbestos were used on its property only at levels below those safe levels of exposure. * * *
{17} “(3)(a) A premises owner is presumed to be not liable for any injury to any invitee who was engaged to work with, install, or remove asbestos products on the premises owner‘s property if the invitee‘s employer held itself out as qualified to perform the work. * * *
{18} “(b) A premises owner that hired a contractor before January 1, 1972, to perform the type of work at the premises owner‘s property that the contractor was qualified to perform cannot be liable for any injury to any individual resulting from asbestos exposure caused by any of the contractor‘s employees or agents on the premises owner‘s property * * *
{19} “(c) If exposure to asbestos is alleged to have occurred on or after January 1, 1972, a premises owner is not liable for any injury to any individual resulting from that exposure caused by a contractor‘s employee or agent on the premises owner‘s property * * * ”
{120} As we explained in State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114, 2007-Ohio-1246, 863 N.E.2d 124, “in cases of statutory construction, ‘our paramount concern is the legislative intent in enacting the statute.‘” Id. at 129, quoting State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21. To determine intent, we look to the language of the statute and the purpose that is to be accomplished by the statute, see Rice v. CertainTeed Corp. (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 417, 419, 704 N.E.2d 1217, and “when its meaning is clear and unambiguous,” we apply the statute “as written.” Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 120 Ohio St.3d 493, 2008-Ohio-6323, 900 N.E.2d 601, ¶ 9.
{21} Our role, as this court recognized in State ex rel. Myers v. Spencer Twp. Rural School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1917), 95 Ohio St. 367, 373, 116 N.E. 516, is to evaluate a statute “as a whole and giv[e] such interpretation as will give effect to every word and clause in it. No part should be treated as superfluous unless that is manifestly required, and the court should avoid that construction which renders a provision meaningless or inoperative.” Indeed, as we determined in Weaver v. Edwin Shaw Hosp., 104 Ohio St.3d 390, 2004-Ohio-6549, 819 N.E.2d 1079, statutes “‘may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged; significance and effect should, if possible, be accorded to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act.‘” Id. at ¶ 13, quoting Wachendorf v. Shaver (1948), 149 Ohio St. 231, 36 O.O. 554, 78 N.E.2d 370, paragraph five of the syllabus.
{22} When the statute is read in its entirety, the legislative intent behind
{123} Were we to apply the interpretation offered by Clayton and Boley, which is to read the phrase “exposure to asbestos” in
{124} Moreover, when read together,
{125} When the provisions of
Conclusion
{126} Pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
PFEIFER, J., dissents.
BROWN, C.J., not participating.
O‘CONNOR, J., concurring.
{127} Because the General Assembly, in
{128} 2004 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 292 (“H.B. 292“) “[e]xtensively revised state laws governing asbestos litigation and was in response to the legislative finding that ‘[t]he current asbestos personal injury litigation system is unfair and inefficient, imposing a severe burden on litigants and taxpayers alike.‘” Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co., 120 Ohio St.3d 228, 2008-Ohio-5243, 897 N.E.2d 1118, ¶ 3, quoting Section 3(A)(2), 150 Ohio Laws, Part III, 3970, 3988.
{129} H.B. 292 enacted
{130] As the majority holds,
{131} First, appellants were not left entirely without a remedy because of
{132} “If a person files a tort action that alleges an asbestos claim based on a wrongful death, as described in
{133} And Clayton and Boley took advantage of their rights to seek remedies against other defendants. Indeed, they pursued the remedies afforded them in H.B. 292 by filing a complaint that asserted multiple claims against more than 200 named defendants and 100 John Doe defendants. And according to counsel‘s representations during oral argument, appellants proceeded to trial against at least one defendant, Mahoning Valley Supply Company, ultimately settling with that defendant before the conclusion of trial. Counsel further indicated that appellants have resolved and/or settled their claims against the remaining parties.
{134} Second, the proposition of law asserted by appellants asks this court to determine only whether
{135} I am not without compassion for appellants’ position that
LANZINGER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.
{36}
{137} Boley does not claim that Adams was exposed to asbestos on Goodyear‘s property, and yet she is being told by this court that she can‘t bring a claim for “exposure to asbestos on [Goodyear‘s] property.” The majority opinion waxes poetic about its duty to read the statute and nothing but the statute, neither adding words to, nor subtracting words from, the statute, but then adds words to the statute. In syllabus law, the majority opinion states that “[a] premises owner is not liable in tort for claims arising from asbestos exposure originating from asbestos on the owner‘s property, unless the exposure occurred at the owner‘s property.” But the statute doesn‘t refer to where the asbestos “originates.” The statute states merely that a claim for “exposure to asbestos on the premises owner‘s property” must comply with certain requirements. By its plain words, the statute applies only to plaintiffs who claim they were exposed to asbestos on a premises owner‘s property.
{138} Boley has a completely different claim. She claims that Adams was exposed to asbestos in Adams‘s own home, not on Goodyear‘s property. She claims that the asbestos Adams was exposed to was brought to the home by Adams‘s husband, who worked at Goodyear. Boley is not seeking relief pursuant to
{139} Whether the claim has merit is not for me to decide. Boley may have a claim based on
Bevan & Associates, L.P.A., Inc., Thomas W. Bevan, Patrick M. Walsh, and John D. Mismas, for appellants.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Richard D. Schuster, Nina I. Webb-Lawton, Matthew M. Daiker, and Michael J. Hendershot, for appellee.
Brzytwa, Quick & McCrystal, L.L.C., James L. McCrystal Jr., and Matthew L. Snyder, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Thomas I. Michals, Matthew M. Mendoza, and Laura C. McBride, urging affirmance for amici curiae Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, and Toledo Edison Company.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Victor E. Schwartz, and Mark A. Behrens, urging affirmance for amici curiae Ohio Chamber of Commerce, American Insurance Association, Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Tort Reform Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, American Petroleum Institute, and American Chemistry Council.