Amorello v. Monsanto Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 112838 |
| Citation | 186 Mich.App. 324,463 N.W.2d 487 |
| Parties | Doris AMORELLO and Leonard Amorello, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONSANTO CORPORATION and Detroit Edison Company, Defendants-Appellees. 186 Mich.App. 324, 463 N.W.2d 487, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P. 12,726 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[186 MICHAPP 325] Thomas A. Stotz, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman by John E.S. Scott, Detroit, for Monsanto Corp.
Barbier & Tolleson, P.C. by Christopher G. Manolis, Detroit, for Detroit Edison Co.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and SAWYER and DOCTOROFF, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order granting defendants' motions for summary[186 MICHAPP 326] disposition. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered a variety of medical problems as a result of exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which allegedly leaked from a Detroit Edison electrical transformer located in their backyard. Defendant Monsanto was the manufacturer of the electrical transformer. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition because sufficient evidence existed to raise a question of material fact regarding whether plaintiffs suffered adverse health effects from PCBs leaking from a Detroit Edison transformer on plaintiffs' property. We disagree and affirm.
We first note that some of the facts presented in this opinion are taken from the briefs filed on appeal and from discovery materials which were not part of the lower court record nor presented to the trial court prior to its ruling on the motion for summary disposition. They are included in this opinion where necessary for presentation of the facts.
In late September or early October 1980, a Detroit Edison employee was called to plaintiffs' home to investigate a complaint of low voltage. The investigation revealed that the electrical transformer in plaintiffs' yard was leaking. There was an oil residue on the ground and on the pole, and there were oil stains on the side of the transformer. The employee wrote an order that the transformer be changed, and it was replaced soon thereafter.
In April 1983, plaintiff Leonard Amorello noticed that several trees at the back of the yard were dying. Mr. Amorello noticed that the bottom of the transformer was covered with oil and dust, that the pole was black, and that there was a "big, black puddle" at the base of the pole. Detroit Edison employee Ed Ferasin investigated plaintiffs' [186 MICHAPP 327] complaint and found no evidence that the transformer was leaking. According to plaintiffs, employees of Detroit Edison told them that the transformer contained PCBs. Ferasin took four soil samples. PCBs were not detected in the two samples taken farthest from the pole. PCBs were detected in the other two samples in amounts of 1.5 and 3.0 parts per million (ppm).
In the latter part of 1983, plaintiff Doris Amorello's health began to deteriorate. Mr. Amorello's health began to deteriorate in the latter part of 1984. Both plaintiffs were subsequently examined by several physicians. Dr. Irwin Feldman performed several tests on Mr. Amorello and found that his blood serum contained less than five parts per billion (ppb) of PCBs.
In late 1986, Dr. Paul Grundland performed several tests on Mrs. Amorello which revealed that she suffered from elevated triglyceride levels, an elevated lipoprotein level, and an enlarged liver. Dr. Grundland testified in deposition that these conditions may have been caused by exposure to PCBs. Mrs. Amorello's blood serum contained less than five ppb of PCBs.
Dr. Norman Zimmerman, plaintiffs' expert toxicologist, testified in deposition that the transformer leak was the source of plaintiffs' PCB contamination.
Plaintiffs' complaint was filed on February 6, 1986. On September 19, 1986, the trial court granted plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw. Plaintiffs obtained another attorney, and an amended complaint was filed on March 13, 1987. Discovery closed on January 23, 1988. On June 24, 1988, plaintiffs' attorney moved to withdraw. The trial court granted the motion on July 29, 1988.
Defendant Monsanto filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on September[186 MICHAPP 328] 2, 1988. Defendant Detroit Edison joined in the motion. The grounds for the motion were that (1) plaintiffs had not been exposed to PCBs from the leaking transformer, and (2) even if plaintiffs had been exposed to PCBs, plaintiffs could not establish a causal relationship between the exposure and their health problems. In support of the motion, defendants stated that the transformer which had been replaced in October 1980 and the existing transformer use mineral oil as a dielectric fluid and were not designed to use dielectric fluid containing PCBs. Defendants presented deposition testimony, including Mr. Amorello's testimony that he never touched the black puddle on the ground, and Ferasin's testimony that there were no records of an oil spill on the site and that he was aware of instances where PCBs were detected in soil in the absence of any spill.
The affidavit of Dr. Raymond D. Harbison, an expert in the field of toxicology, and two 1987 articles by Dr. Renate Kimbrough, an expert on PCBs, were attached to defendants' motion. Dr. Harbison stated that all people have background levels of PCBs in their blood ranging from five to thirty ppb, even though they have no known source of PCB exposure. Both plaintiffs had PCB blood levels of less than five ppb. Dr. Harbison explained that no scientific study has shown that body levels of PCBs increase merely because a person has been in the presence of PCB contaminated soil. Dr. Harbison further stated that the opinions expressed by Drs. Feldman and Grundland were not supported by literature considered reliable in the scientific and medical community or by valid scientific data and methods. According to the articles by Dr. Kimbrough, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that PCB exposure causes significant chronic health effects.
[186 MICHAPP 329] Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion in propria persona. In support of the response, plaintiffs attached excerpts from two books published in 1981 which indicate that acute or excessive chronic exposure to PCBs can cause chloracne and liver damage.
The hearing on the motion was held on October 14, 1988. Plaintiffs appeared in propria persona. The trial court granted defendants' motion, ruling that plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the transformer was the source of the PCBs in the ground or that there was a causal connection between the transformer leak and plaintiffs' medical problems.
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition because sufficient evidence existed to raise a question of material fact regarding whether they were exposed to PCBs and that the exposure was the proximate cause of their health problems.
A motion for summary disposition may be granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) when, except with regard to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual support for a claim. The party opposing the motion has the burden of showing that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Ewers v. Stroh Brewery Co., 178 Mich.App. 371, 374, 443 N.W.2d 504 (1989). The opponent must, by documentary evidence, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.; MCR 2.116(G)(4). The existence of a disputed fact must be established by admissible evidence. Pauley v. Hall, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paul v. Bogle
...issue of material fact. McCart v. J. Walter Thompson USA, Inc., 437 Mich. 109, 115, 469 N.W.2d 284 (1991); Amorello v. Monsanto Corp., 186 Mich.App. 324, 329, 463 N.W.2d 487 (1990). Giving the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the nonmoving party, "the court must determine whether a record......
-
Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.
...in Arkansas. Dr. Harbison had testified on behalf of Monsanto on at least one prior occasion, in a case (Amorello v. Monsanto Corp., 186 Mich.App. 324, 463 N.W.2d 487 (1990)) in which the issue was, as here, whether PCBs had caused the plaintiffs' Dr. Harbison testified that there were many......
-
H.J. Tucker and Associates, Inc. v. Allied Chucker and Engineering Co.
...was sufficiently reliable to form the basis for his expert opinion and also assisted the trier of fact. Amorello v. Monsanto Corp., 186 Mich.App. 324, 332, 463 N.W.2d 487 (1990). We note that although defendant is correct in stating that Markowski was provided with summary sheets prepared b......
-
Meagher v. Wayne State University
...to the general rule that this Court's review is limited to the record presented to the trial court, Amorello v. Monsanto Corp., 186 Mich.App. 324, 330, 463 N.W.2d 487 (1990), we limit our review to the deposition testimony and exhibits filed or submitted when the successor judge rendered hi......
-
Table of Cases
...1999 Fla. Lexis 662 (April 22, 1999), § 8:650.1 Ames v. Commissioner , 94 T.C. 189 (1990), § 8:530 Amorello v. Monsanto Corp ., 186 Mich. App. 324 (1990), § 9:520.1 Anton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 238 Mich. App. 673, 678; 607 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. App. 1999), § 9:520.3 Anson v. Fickel......
-
Brief Supporting Motion To Exclude Photos
...may not tend to confuse or mislead the jury; the facts and data in formulating an opinion must be reliable. Amorello v. Monsanto Corp., 186 Mich. App. 324 In Sloan v. Clemmons, 2001 WL 1735087 (Del. Super.), another Delaware case, the Delaware Superior Court addressed what the Davis court m......