Hagen v. Celotex Corp.

HAGEN, al., et Charles Plaintiffs-

Respondents, CORPORATION,

The CELOTEX

Defendant, Corporation and Owens- Inc.,

Illinois, Defendants-

Appellants.

No. 73520. Missouri,

Supreme Court

En Banc.

Sept. 1991.

Rehearing Denied Oct. Poole, Welsh, A. Dennis Russell Joel

W. Dobbels, City, Kansas for defendants- J. appellants. Bronson, Louis, plaintiffs-

I.Mark St. respondents.

BLACKMAR, Judge. Ha- and children of Gloria husband her gen damages for death seek mesothelioma, malignant a rare condi- exposure usually associated generally Stedman’s fibers.1 See asbestos (5th Unabridged Dictionary Law- Medical Charles, husband, Her yers’ Edition the time been an asbestos worker since had she marriage in of their dust as she constantly exposed to asbestos Saturday. The his coveralls each washed exposure concede that defendants illness and underlying cause her was the death, argue have that defendants’ not established directly to her disease. Twelve contributed de- were named as manufacturers bankruptcies settlements fendants but lining lung.” explained pleur- expert 1. Plaintiffs’ medical arising from the mesothelioma a "tumor al Submissibility the time of reduced number to three trial, at jury which the returned a ver- $2,000,- dict favor of the a. As to Owens-Illinois Following 000.2 trial defendant Celotex proprietor Owens-Illinois was Corporation was from the af- excused asbestos-containing product insulation Chapter seeking protection, leaving ter 30, 1958, “Kaylo” April it sold until when only Corporation defendants Fibreboard Kaylo Owens-Corning its division to Fiber- Owens-Illinois, Inc., appellants. and as glass. It not manufactured or distrib- has District, Appeals, of Eastern Court any product reversed as to Owens-Illinois but uted asbestos since affirmed Fibreboard, and, part of its initial as a stipulated then. that parties Owens- opinion, transferred the case here because exposure Kay- Illinois was not liable importance question whether of 1,May lo occurring after 1958. the defendants were entitled to an instruc- Hagen presented Plaintiff a list Charles “unreasonably tional definition of danger- locations, showing job his various the time stand possessed ous.” We entire each, periods during he worked at which case, and now fur- reverse remand for products job. and the used at each proceedings, concluding points ther only Kay- exhibit contained one mention of highlighted by other than the one the court appeals dispositive. prior are lo as follows: 1954, 1959-1971 Airport Lambert Pabco Insulation Mag Johns-Manville Ce- 85% ment Kaylo Webers Eagle-Picher One Cote Cement Super

Keene Ce- Powerhouse ment tradictory While exhibit indicates that propositions Charles is insuffi- so Hagen worked Kaylo with at Air- Lambert plaintiffs’ cient to sustain burden port it does not establish whether this use establishing judgment against either.4 The place took when Owens-Illinois Owens-Illinois must be reversed. Kaylo, during manufactured the period 1959-1971, Owens-Corning when was the b. As to Fibreboard

manufacturer.3 is a mineral which once Asbestos attempt In an at clarification coun was widely used insulation materials. appellants for the Hagen sel asked Mr. period years distressing symp- aOver questions several on cross-examination appeared persons toms who had had Airport his work at Lambert in 1954. exposure Perhaps substantial to asbestos. mentioned he during He five used asbestosis, the most ailment common is Kaylo. that time but made no mention of nonmalignant lung is Thus, scarring which connecting him malignant tissue. are also condi- Kaylo ambiguous was There reference in exposure, provides the list. The no tions exhibit more than attributable equal support which is one. Mesothelioma two inconsistent and con- mesothelioma $1,780,000, Cavender, (Mo. Judgment giving 2. entered for 4.Williams v. S.W.2d 537 Lively, credit for amounts received in from Phillips settlement Accord Hubert, defendants. other (Mo.App.1986), and Lewis v. S.W.2d 860 Owens-Corning was named as defendant petition appellant’s but settled trial. before make Fibreboard used the brand name “Pab- by asbestos fibers which is actuated pleural cavity. products. way to the co” for its asbestos As Dr. Dew concluded his direct examination the follow- and is Asbestos exists in different forms ing exchange occurred: concentrations used different dangerous most and consistencies. The Q your opinion, And in is there a dif- cracidolite, which in Fibre- used regarding ference their causal effect rather, products. products, Those board’s to the mesothelioma one other? chrysotile contained asbestos in the might physi- A I there be some think (amoebocyte) forms. Plaintiffs’ amosite cal difference most announce experts testified that all asbestos problems. As re- all asbestos agreed that the several dangerous textbooks, information, viewed one of the properties forms of asbestos different have Brown’s, practical purposes all all dangerous. the most and that crocidolite is I fibers would be viewed the same. don’t having Hagen Charles testified to good you can think there is evidence that least products worked of at with asbestos to type from the of fibers as extricate period thirty nine over a of manufacturers presentation the the of cancer. of years. greater part his work single is is problem with it asbestos of products; his use Johns-Manville many has sub- standing. Asbestos products quantified. other is not Fibre- stances, very pure seldom a so there’s that have failed argues board the anywhere products in the that asbestos prove to that its were a substan- we have. ill- Hagen’s tial in Mrs. causative factor point asked the At no was Dr. Dew ness. Pabco peculiar properties of the plaintiffs, in order recover to Hagen opinion was his Mr. used. Nor defendant, must that any establish particular prod- sought as to whether these products directly that defendant’s contrib to from meso- ucts contributed the death requires to This uted the death. he testi- On cross-examination thelioma. sought product that the each defendant fied as follows: factor" to be held liable was a “substantial fact, Q company I a represent In In a this causing the harm.5 case of Owens-Illinois, Incorporated, I called causal plaintiff kind must establish the the Let me ask represent also Fibreboard. expert relationship by testimony. Kircher question. can’t sit here you this You (Mo. Mills, Inc., 775 S.W.2d 115 v. Purina that fibers today tell us Owens-Illinois’ 1989); Associa banc Missouri Farmers hit the and caused the mesothelio- pleura (Mo. Kempker, v. 723 banc ma? 1987). expert plaintiffs’ witnesses Of internist, Dew, ex I treating Dr. A cannot. the rela pressed competent opinion a to Q you I the same And could ask tionship products and between asbestos Fibreboard, your an- question about that, a death.6 He testified Gloria’s swer would be same? certainty,” degree medical “reasonable Right. A di dust from expert opin- her record rectly directly Thus the barren caused or contributed directly con- identify par ion that Fibreboard’s death. He did not cancer and Dr. Dew illness and death. point. that tributed to the products at this He said ticular cumulative ef- hypothesis particularly significant disavowed a dosage is not fect, Hagen that Mrs. suggesting instead material causing mesothelioma and hypersensitivity to asbestos probably had exposure. is the fact circumstance below, Inc., testimony the chem- As is Ray Const. 6. shown v. Kruse Co. Jackson (Mo. ist-toxicologist, Daugherty, was received Dr. also Rick banc see S.W.2d Maine, is not of death and City Stockyards as evidence of Co. etts Kansas competent purpose. for that S.W.2d they had concluding testimony There the claimed that fibres. His cross- examination is as follows: harmed toxic emissions from been argued plant. The defendants chemical Q You also mentioned about the as- was not sufficient the evidence floating bestos around the air damage show that such as occurred you agree as- urban area. Do that the plant, by the emissions from the caused floating bestos around the air here plain the exclusion of other causes. The opposed Louis area as to the St. analysis tiffs’ evidence consisted of Hagen may got- asbestos that Mrs. have emissions, comprehensive biochemical washing ten from her clothes husband’s tests, phy opinion qualified and an from a may have caused this mesothelioma? emissions, to a sician that inhalation of the fiber Again, A I’m not sure which certainty, caused or reasonable medical possible caused this. I think it is plaintiffs’ symptoms. contributed to may played part. I don’t have Competent expert testimony singled the de that, you separate know how under responsible party. fendant out as the the circumstances. It’s there. It’s in the get I air we breathe. We all it in. So Compa- In Abbott v. Babcock & Wilcox don’t know that the examination is such (8th Cir.1990), ny, 905 F.2d you get say down and this is the plaintiff’s expert expressly asked one that did it. exposure particular whether to the defen- Thanks, MR. Doctor. WELSH: products contributing “had a dant’s been lung factor to the cancer death of Mr. The redirect continued as follows: Abbott,” responded in affirma- and he Doctor, Q your opinion what is the suggestion tive. To the defendant’s probable likely most and cause of her the witness had not testified in terms of mesothelioma? responded “substantial factor” the court cleaning A I think it’s related to the jury could have found that that the clothes, shaking is known to contributing factor was substantial. The particularly common be and leads supplied record in that case evidence which good you inhalation of a dose at the time is absent here. people do that. So that when shake out clothes, probably that’s when she Paper Borel v. Fibreboard Products got reasonably good a dose from inhala- Cir.1973), (5th F.2d Corporation, 493 1076 tion. concerning liability seminal manufacturers and sellers of asbestos. It plaintiffs Thus the have failed to exposition the entire contains a valuable any more than that the death was establish problem. brought The case was on a fail- by exposure caused to asbestos dust and theory. ure to warn The evidence showed products may sup that Fibreboard’s have “exposed prod- plaintiff that the to the plied exposure. the fatal This does many ucts of of the defendants on occa- all causation under the standards of establish ...;” exposure that “the effect of sions. problem our law. The differs in de cumulative, ...;” to asbestos dust is gree and not in kind from the one we exposures could that “even the most recent Co., Lilly v. Eli 676 considered & Zafft accelerated Borel’s overall have added to or 1984), 241 which holds S.W.2d at 1094. condition.” Id. that the element of causation must be es sought to be tablished as to each defendant Co., Gypsum Roehling In v. National decisions held. There we declined to follow Cir.1986), (4th the evidence 786 F.2d 1225 that seem to have relaxed of other states husband, who plaintiff’s that the showed standards. the traditional causation See mesothelioma, had worked had died of Claus, Mo. 249 Schoening v. 363 area in which period in an a substantial (1952). plaintiffs’ cited The S.W.2d de- supplied by the two products support contrary cases do not a conclusion. exposed to were used and was fendants The medi- during that time. rely asbestos dust The first on Elam v. Alco products these two lac, Inc., pinpointed cal evidence S.W.2d Hagen as The deceased was a ucts of Fibreboard that Charles causative factors. worker, used, and the pipefitter, period they an asbestos over the of time were his exposure focused on used. installing pipes defendants’ while again the case must be tried Inasmuch as which asbestos was used insulation. points appeal on consider raised we other reviewing showing held court likely which are to recur. jury, take the case to the was sufficient to erred in and that the trial court had direct- Alleged Instructional Error ing verdict. (a) Director Verdict “Clarification” of Corporation, Brisboy v. Fibreboard In (1988), 429 Mich. 418 N.W.2d 650 there The verdict director Fibreboard exposure of a six month was evidence reads follows: product and also the single defendant’s must Your verdict be for lung finding of tissue. residual asbestos Corpora- against defendant lung cancer and employee had died of you if tion believe: sought heavy the defense establish First, plaintiffs are the husband and smoking held that as the cause. The court Hagen, Gloria children finding that as- supported the evidence Second, Corpora- defendant Fibreboard contributing exposure was cause. bestos sold insulation opinion Migues v. Fibreboard business, the course of its asbestos in Cir.1982), (5th Corporation, F.2d evidence, plaintiff’s not detail the does Third, insulation contain- puts much contra- stress absence in a ing were then defective the of causation. The diction of dangerous unreasonably when condition trial holding was that the court ultimate use, reasonably anticipated and to a put products holding that asbestos erred Fourth, products con- the insulation dangerous a of law and were as matter in a taining were used manner Thus, new directing liability. a of a verdict anticipated, reasonably and necessary. We do not find con- trial was Fifth, condition as exist- such defective just case and the others flict between this products insulation contain- ed when the discussed. directly sold either ing asbestos were justice requires that the We believe directly to cause or contributed caused sup- given opportunity the plaintiffs be Hagen. the death of Gloria proof. we in their ply the deficiencies find gave a converse instruc- The court also outright and remand to prefer We reversal Fibreboard, reading of request the tion at reversal, that the as we are convinced as follows: make retrial. plaintiff could not for defendant must Your verdict be 91, 95 Nagle, v. 807 S.W.2d Kaufmann you be- Corporation unless Fibreboard Super Moss v. National (Mo. 1991); banc lieve: Inc., (Mo. Markets, 781 S.W.2d First, Corpora- defendant Fibreboard Company, v. Shell Oil Morris banc containing as- products insulation tion’s (Mo.1971). Questions condition un- in a defective were bestos nu- proof products when of of causation put rea- reasonably dangerous to a when involved have manufacturers merous use, sonably anticipated jurispru- developed well in our not been Second, ex- condition as defective dence, of such may be lack consen- and there products con- when the insulation plain- isted among lawyers.7 The sus courts and directly sold either taining asbestos were opportunity to intro- the tiffs should have to cause directly or contributed caused effects evidence about causative duce Hagen. death of Gloria specific prod- from exposure of to dust Farber, (1984); System," 97 Harv.L.R. 851 Mass Tort Rosenberg, Causal Correction in “The See (1987). Causation," 71 Minn.L.R. "Toxic 'Public Vision Exposure Cases: A Law’ request- duty The court refused an instruction exercise its determine whether a Owens-Illinois, has been made and not a by de- submissible case ed Fibreboard and instructing jury. formula MAI 19.- “clarifying” scribed as a instruction applicable, in the here allowed form reading as follows: “directly caused or instruction terms may There be more than one substan- Only directly to cause.”9 con- contributed injury tial of an and the existence if would result an additional formu- fusion preclude plain- other causes does required. lation were recovering you tiffs if de- believe one fendants’ were of the sub- (b) “Unreasonably Definition of However, of injury. stantial causes Dangerous” recovery against there to be a defen- requested Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois dant, you Hagen’s must find that Gloria instruction as follows: exposure product to that defendant’s phrase dangerous” “unreasonably contributing a substantial factor. used this instruction means that the that, argue The defendants without utility of the usefulness instruction, jury might the refused as outweighed by its risks. sume it could impose liability without appeals The court in- found this finding that Fibreboard’s contrib under struction was not authorized our Hagen’s uted Mrs. fatal illness. We do law, but transferred case here because director, not believe that the read verdict importance point. of the Because of converse, subject with the criti this state of record are unable to we might possibly cism. The verdict director very add much to discussion Nessel- clearer, especially be in a case in which Inc., Beechcraft, rode v. Executive identical instructions are used for several 1986), S.W.2d 376-8 defendants, third, if the fourth and fifth Independence District U.S. School modified, paragraphs were as the defen Gypsum, 750 S.W.2d read, suggest, dants so as to insula “the argue The defendants for a “risk-bene sold fit” The Restatement Torts instruction. Corporation ...” who Counsel analysis suggests that a risk-benefit is es instruction, really an apparently think that involving pecially appropriate in cases crit form, proper ambiguous confusing is or may provide ical medical which out, point problem should and then therapy for serious con available opposing willing counsel should be to make may ditions but which have serious side clarifying need modifications without the (Second) of Torts effects. Restatement ruling by for a the court. v. 402A comment k. See Feldman Led § 429, Laboratories, requested in 97 479 A.2d The defendants’ erle N.J. furthermore, (1984). concept ap objectionable, might is The also be struction 374 not speaking plicable in terms of “substantial causes” to useful which are unsafe, contributing when issues generally factor.” Our considered “substantial of showing alleged presented as to alternative methods require cases that an are adequacy warnings. contributing design cause and the of “substantial however, 94 pro Corporation, v. N.J. language, factor.”8 This Muskin O’Brien Devitt, 169, (1983); 3 Black for the trial in the 463 A.2d 298 vides standard court causing 4. of describe another [acts {here 8. See cases cited footnote damage) {here of the describe ] [condition opt for 9. The 1986 revision allows to damage directly plain- product)] to to following multiple paragraphs of where one tiff. damage causes of exist: This instruc- MAI-3rd 19.01 [1986 Revision]. Third, negligence directly or such caused wrongful by apply cases sub- death plain- directly damage contributed to cause "damage stituting "the death of’ words tiff. Honey Hospital, 708 See v. Barnes S.W.2d to." 686, Third, directly negligence such either plaintiff damage or combined caused Wolff, any damages you plaintiffs for be- Jury mar Practice and sate & Federal as a re- Instructions, (1987), 82.09, lieve sustained direct p. 4th Ed. § injury Hagen. sult fatal Gloria your plaintiffs, If is for then in verdict record, however, presents no This you may assessing damages take into dangers. weighing issue benefits any mitigating consideration circum- Although widely used asbestos once was upon injury. stances the fatal attendant insulating an it considered material is now grief You must not consider or ber- con dangerous so that insulation reason by eavement suffered marketed taining have not been death. early widespread asbes 1970s and since trial the instruction The court refused have undertaken. projects tos removal been explicitly cautioned the defendants attempt to show that Fibreboard made no any “state of the suggestion of a it utility that could be product its had such opinion in argument, pointing to our art” reasonably by adequate safe rendered Inc., Owens-Illinois, Elmore v. S.W.2d Indepen warning. District See School 1984). (Mo. banc 454, Gypsum, 750 S.W.2d at dence v. U.S. Elmore, however, wrongful not a rejecting no was found in which error statute, wrongful death death case. testimony, “comparative risk assessment” 537.090, provides expressly RSMo § proper proof. of a offer of Fibre- want argued instead that its board mitigating aggravating circum- dangerous, jury unreasonably not may attending the be con- stances death clearly agree. did estab The evidence facts trier of the ... sidered exposure to asbestos. dangers lished the Independence See v. wrongful School District Actions for death (Mo.App. Gypsum, 750 S.W.2d statutory. U.S. Pro purely Glick v. Ballentine (Mo. Paper Inc., Prod duce, Borel v. Fibreboard 613-14 396 S.W.2d (5th depart Corporation, 1965). governing 493 F.2d 1076 Cir. ucts statutes permitting the actual the common law damages to increased on account be defining “un No other instruction or reduced aggravating circumstances requested, reasonably dangerous” was circumstances, sup if mitigating account appropriate it to comment would be sparse rather ported by the evidence. The See Nesselrode v. Executive further. mitigating indi law on circumstances Inc., Beechcraft, has broad discretion jury cates that the 1986) (Blackmar, concurring), indi J. constituting miti determining matters may questions open be cating there McDowell, 214 gation. S.W.2d Hertz defining this term. under our law about 546, (Mo. banc Patison v. existing and say the case law We cannot (Mo.1960); 72, 75 Campbell, 337 S.W.2d answer all present MAI instructions the 225, (Mo. Bradford, 369 S.W.2d May v. may in possible legal questions which arise entitles the defendants The statute party cases. A who be liability the would authorize to instruction which an legal are instructions lieves that additional mitigating circumstances. to consider jury request a correct in ly appropriate must to MAI requested instruction conforms The evidentiary develop an and must struction 6.01. 5.01 and support. in record might under- The Fibreboard defendant that, it the at the time sold take to show (c) Mitigating Circumstances worked, Hagen products on which Charles offered Owens-Illinois and beneficial, Fibreboard safe, they it were believed that following instruction: the It insulating materials. and useful as an appropriate to venture plaintiffs, then not be in favor of would you If find precise as to show- opinion point as at this plaintiffs such sum you must award on instruction justify an justly compen- ing which would fairly and you will believe HOLSTEIN, JJ., and mitigation. judge The trial made it clear RENDLEN and JJ., HIGGINS, and Senior any development he not McHANEY would allow concur. argument, and so of a state of art pursuit point on the would have

further ROBERTSON, C.J., part in and concurs parties may futile. The make such been filed. separate opinion in part in dissents proffers they appropriate deem on re- COVINGTON, J., part concurs in and mand. concurring part in and part dissents ROBERTSON, dissenting part opinion plaintiffs op exercised C.J. requesting under MAI 5.01 of not an aggravating circumstances.10 instruction on BENTON, J., participating because preclude the This tactical decision does not case was a member of the Court when requesting defendants from an instruction submitted. mitigation. ROBERTSON, Justice, concurring Chief part dissenting part. Expert Testimony wholeheartedly principal in the I concur expert Daugherty, Dr. Kenneth E. an opinion’s conclusions that toxicologist, chemist and testified for against failed to make a submissible properties However, plaintiffs about the harmful and Fibreboard. Owens-Illinois objected, The defendants assert- opinion asbestos. errs in re- principal I believe testify ing qualified that he was not to for a manding the case is not relationship the causal between the A remand in this case new trial. required. Ha- inhalation of asbestos dust and Mrs.

gen’s The trial court ruled as fol- illness. May plaintiffs filed their case lows: defendants, naming 17 twelve of mining, manu- in the whom were involved opinion qualified give

I find him to converting, facturing, importing, distribut- as to constitutes the whether asbestos prod- ing, and sales of asbestos or hazard, understand, you health and so em- remaining defendants were ucts. The going permit testify I’m not him to Hagen, whose contracts ployers of Charles opinion of the cancer as to Hagen, also provided employment for anything he further than that because into contact with asbes- caused him to come is not a medical doctor. opinion principal products. tos As obliged prove settlements, out, which amounted points that “the insulation as $220,000, bankruptcies reduced condition, bestos were then a defective at trial to three: of defendants number unreasonably dangerous.” The admission Owens-Illinois, Fibreboard. Celotex and testimony purposes for the indicated bankruptcy, only Following the Celotex his judge the trial was within discretion. and Fibreboard remained Owens-Illinois Main, 356, 359 426 S.W.2d See Butcher counsel han- Plaintiffs’ “live” defendants. Cruz, (Mo.1968); Kummer v. diligence, aggressively this case with dled preparing pursuing the defendants plaintiffs’ ease. judgment against Owens-Illinois is The no new opinion the case is remanded with announces principal reversed and The operates to reverse judgment theory in favor of which directions to enter of law The cases against Fi- in this case. judgment plaintiffs’ judgment The that defendant. Court, rely in this upon plaintiffs the and the case is re- which breboard reversed is they were aware we assume and of which manded for a new trial. (Mo.App. Hospital, 706 S.W.2d 938 recognize Methodist that an instruction on The cases 1986). appropriate aggravating is if circumstances by supported v. Missouri evidence. Guthrie trial, (Mo. banc they prepared as for their 1989 chart S.W.2d and Mor- Co., proving liability 467 S.W.2d a causation ris v. Shell Oil course (Mo.1971). previously part of That chart- For the reasons stat- on the the defendants. ed, support princi- not ed is to understand. does the course not difficult Kaufmann Yet, evidence, map, plaintiffs’ pal opinion’s despite this remand. opinion, “did principal in the words of the Moss, slipped and plaintiff In the fell not the standards establish causation under in puddle parking a defendant’s lot. the law.” our judgment reversed the in favor This Court view, failed plaintiff, under the circum- of the because she to show my In remand should have discovered appropriate would be that the defendant stances this case First, puddle. predi- The Court’s remand was under two circumstances. remand is the First, theory appropriate legal the under on two theories: that this when cated plaintiff brings changed broadening its case is rules which a Court announced a the by opinion slip judicial governing submissibility the record demon- and fall Co., sup- there is evidence available to strates cases under v. T.G. & Y. Stores Sheil theory recovery 1989), port upon (Mo. which is a which was 781 S.W.2d 778 banc probability under new rule announced contemporaneously with Moss. decided by majority opinion aptly Second, the court. As that that the Court believed shows, plaintiffs prove did causa- not deposition taken in the is a record —that existing new tion under the No theo- law. and filed with the trial court—showed case ry by principal is of law enunciated introduced evi- plaintiff could have opinion. employees regularly dence that store went thus on parking lot and were notice into the is rule Second followed Kauf dangerous condition. by Nagle, mann Kaufmann liability/failure to Morris was a appellate proce- injured by It practice plaintiff is a settled case. The warn by dure that case should not be reversed produced of a chemical Shell her use remanding, proof for failure of without party. There and distributed another the record indicates that avail- unless to that the distributor failed was evidence fully essential evidence has been able plaintiff of the hazard associated warn the presented, recovery that no be can question. plain- with the chemical any pertinent This is had in rule event. evidence at trial as tiff did offer that other and where the record indicates warning gave any to the whether Shell might be adduced additional court on its remanded distributor. plaintiff’s support of action and enable speculation outside the record that “[i]t case. him to make a submissible this appear evidence on that some would In Id. at 43. view matter available.” speculate We [Citations omitted.] court’s decision Morris Kaufmann, might expert plaintiffs able to find be is incorrect. missing to the causation. testify who can rule, the But under the record case, no in this there is the record Kaufmann On provide must indica- in the case itself available evi- had indication evidence” was tion that “available essential theory of support their causation dence case, in this presented. the record On this Missouri law. Nor does Court under essential evi- appears it that the available ev- law. The had announce new Further, presented. fully has been dence prove ery opportunity not “indicate that other the record does have been well-ad- and should might be adduced and additional evidence law requirements of Missouri vised support plaintiff’s action.” Yet, plain- prior court. to causation The rules make their case. in tiffs failed to opinion cites three cases principal call has followed for this remand is re- law Court support position of its re- 951; to be against Fibreboard judgment Kaufmann; 807 S.W.2d at quired. outright. Markets, Inc., versed Super v. National Moss respectfully I dissent as to remand plaintiffs’ case as to Fibreboard. Bronson, Louis, plaintiffs- I. St. for

Mark appellants. BENNETT, al., et Louise C. Louis, Grebel, Paul H. St. Lawrence B. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Aloe, City, defendant-respon- New York dent. CORPORATION, RAPID AMERICAN Defendant-Respondent. RENDLEN, Judge. injury These consolidated claims

No. 73240. wrongful against group of death com- or Missouri, Supreme Court of engaged in the manufacture or sale panies En Banc. from which allegedly contracted as- or their decedents 10, Sept. dis- and other asbestos-related bestosis appeal the order of Plaintiffs eases. dismissing petitions trial court Rapid Corpo- American against defendant personam jurisdiction. ration for lack of from the The causes are here transfer Appeals, Eastern Dis- Missouri Court of trict. We reverse remand. Rapid Ameri-

There no contention direct other contact any has had has been involved with Missouri or Rather, or manufacture asbestos. sale jurisdiction on their claim of rest Philip Carey Manufactur- activities of Company (Old Carey), seller insula- ing corporate relationship its products, Carey Old Rapid American. headquartered corporation Ohio merged Alden into Glen and which state assets, 1967; the June Corporation on operations Old and business liabilities transferred to a Carey simultaneously were subsidiary, Philip Carey Manufac- separate (New Carey), which Corporation turing Carey Corpora- Philip its changed name Carey contin- February 1968. New tion in business, to conduct ued not involved. itself was which Glen Alden Carey Briggs merged In New forming Company, the Pa- Manufacturing Glen Alden Corporation, and nacon majority Panacon its stock interest sold

Case Details

Case Name: Hagen v. Celotex Corp.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Sep 10, 1991

Citation: 816 S.W.2d 667

Docket Number: 73520

Court Abbreviation: Mo.