Kisor v. Johns-Manville Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1986
• Docket Number: JOHNS-MANVILLE,No. 84-4380,84-4380
• Citation: 783 F.2d 1337
• Parties: 22 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 241, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 10,931 Cleo KISOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard F. Kisor, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.CORP., et al., Defendants, Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1337

783 F.2d 1337

22 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 241, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 10,931

Cleo KISOR, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard F. Kisor, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORP., et al., Defendants Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84-4380.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 1985.

Decided Feb. 27, 1986.

Raymond J. Conboy, Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary & Conboy, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellant.

Michele C. Coyle, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Before WRIGHT and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and STRAND, ^* District Judge.

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal we must decide whether a manufacturer's ignorance of an asbestos product's danger is a defense to a wrongful death claim based solely upon a strict liability theory under Washington law. We hold that it is not.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

In 1980, Leonard Kisor, an asbestos worker for 34 years, died of mesothelioma, an abdominal cancer that results from the inhalation of asbestos fibers. ¹ His widow sued numerous asbestos manufacturers for wrongful death, alleging negligence and strict product liability for failure to give adequate warning of the product's danger. All defendants, except Owens-Illinois and Johns-Manville, had settled by the end of trial. Johns-Manville sought the protection of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act and did not participate in the trial.

At the close of her case in chief, Kisor abandoned her negligence claim and proceeded solely on a strict products liability claim. She then asked the judge to limit the anticipated testimony of the defense expert witnesses. ² She argued that any The judge let Owens-Illinois present its experts. Dr. Demopoulos testified at length concerning industry standards for workplace exposure to asbestos dust during the decade Owens-Illinois produced Kaylo. ³ He testified also that it was unknown until the early 1960's that exposure to asbestos could lead to mesothelioma.

testimony concerning medical knowledge and industry standards in the 1940's and 1950's would be irrelevant to her remaining strict liability claim and inadmissible.

According to Demopoulos, the safe level recommended by government industrial hygienists as well as independent scientists was an asbestos density in the work environment below five million particles per cubic foot. He also testified that Owens-Illinois kept well within this Threshold Limit Value, or TLV, at its own plants and advised users of Kaylo to do so and to control excess asbestos dust. Kaylo contained no other warnings. Two other witnesses, former employees of Owens-Illinois, gave testimony consistent with that of Demopoulos as to Owens-Illinois's conformity with industry custom and its ignorance of the long-term harm associated with low-level asbestos exposure.

Before closing argument, the district judge instructed the jury on Washington law governing products liability claims. ⁴ Kisor did not object. She did except, however, to the court's refusal to give three of her requested instructions. She contends that the court's failure to give Plaintiff's Instruction No. 10 was error because it would have explicitly negated the manufacturer's ignorance as a defense. ⁵

Owens-Illinois's counsel emphasized in closing argument that its ignorance of the harm resulting from workers' exposure to

                low levels of asbestos was relevant and was a defense to Kisor's strict liability claim.  He argued also that Kisor had failed to show that its product was either a substantial factor in causing or a proximate cause of Kisor's death. 6   The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant on which judgment was entered.  Kisor timely appealed
                

ISSUES ON APPEAL

Kisor raises two issues:

(1) Did the district court err in admitting testimony as to medical and industry knowledge concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure at the time Kisor was exposed?

(2) Did it err in refusing Kisor's requested instruction that ignorance of the harm of asbestos exposure is not a defense to a strict liability claim?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be reversed absent some prejudice. Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 764 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1985). To reverse, we must say that more probably than not, the error tainted the verdict. Haddad v. Lockheed California Corp., 720 F.2d 1454, 1459 (9th Cir.1983).

In reviewing jury instructions we must determine whether, viewing the instructions as a whole, the court gave adequate instructions on each element of the case to ensure that the jury fully understood the issues. Fiorito Bros., Inc. v. Fruehauf Corp., 747 F.2d 1309, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1984). We must consider whether the instruction is misleading or states the law incorrectly to the prejudice of the objecting party. Coursen, 764 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir.1985).

We review the district court's determination and application of state law de novo. In re McLinn, 739 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc).

DISCUSSION

Evidence of Manufacturer's Knowledge

In this diversity suit, the substance of Washington law applies. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). We must decide as we think the state's highest court would. To decide if it was an abuse of discretion to admit evidence of Owens-Illinois's knowledge at the time of Kisor's exposure, we must determine whether Washington law allows the "manufacturer's knowledge" defense offered at trial. ⁷

In Washington, in determining the adequacy of a warning in a strict liability action, the question is: "Was the warning sufficient to catch the attention of persons who could be expected to use the product; to apprise them of its dangers and to advise them of the measures to take to avoid those dangers?" Little v. PPG Industries, Inc., 92 Wash.2d 118, 122, 594 P.2d 911, 914 (1979). ⁸ The focus is on the warning itself and the reasonable expectations of the consumer, not upon the manufacturer's conduct. Id.

In another case we asked the Washington Supreme Court to decide the admissibility of evidence of compliance with industry customs and standards when offered by the defendant as evidence of the reasonable expectation of the ordinary consumer. Its answer:

Introducing evidence of industry and/or manufacturer's customs and practices shifts the jury's focus from what the consumer expects to what the manufacturers are doing. By focusing the jury's attention on the custom of the industry, implicitly the jury's attention is focused on the defendant's design choice and the reasonableness of that choice. In effect, such evidence incorporates negligence concepts and the seller oriented approach we rejected in Estate of Ryder v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. [91 Wash.2d 111, 587 P.2d 160 (1978) ]. This is not appropriate in actions alleging strict liability under Section 402A.

"The rule is one of strict liability, making the seller subject to liability to the user or consumer even though he has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product."

* * *

The plaintiff takes the design as it was finalized in the finished product and shows it was not reasonably safe because the user would not contemplate the danger in the normal and innocent use of the product or consumption of the product. The liability of the manufacturer is measured solely by the characteristics of the product he has produced rather than his behavior and, therefore, strict liability does not sound in negligence. (citations omitted).

Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Wash.2d 208, 212-13, 683 P.2d 1097, 1100 (1984).

Owens-Illinois's inquiries about medical knowledge in the industry and industry standards impermissibly put negligence concepts before the jury. These are irrelevant in a strict products liability case under Washington law. Nor should the defense have been allowed to argue in closing that ignorance of the product's danger is a defense to strict products liability. This argument misstated the state law and, coupled with the expert testimony, allowed the jury to conclude that if Owens-Illinois did not know of the danger of its product, it could not be held liable. ⁹

In this case, we cannot say that the jury's decision was unaffected by the admission of this irrelevant evidence. Because the judge did not strike or admonish the jury to disregard the evidence, the verdict was probably tainted by the evidence of the manufacturer's knowledge. See Sheehy v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 631 F.2d 649, 652 (9th Cir.1980).

Kisor was prejudiced by the admission of evidence not relevant to her strict liability claim, and we conclude that refusal to exclude such evidence was an abuse of discretion.

Instruction on Manufacturer's Knowledge

Kisor contends that the court's failure to give Plaintiff's Instruction No. 10 let the jury weigh improper evidence and decide the case on an improper standard of liability. She argues that this instruction was necessary to tell the jury that a manufacturer's lack of knowledge of the harmful characteristics of its product is not a defense to a strict liability claim under Washington law.

We agree that under Washington law the instruction was necessary. When considered with the erroneously admitted evidence of the manufacturer's knowledge, the instruction given, albeit an accurate statement of the law of strict liability, suggested improperly that recovery under a strict liability theory requires proof of negligence. Washington law is unequivocal:

[T]he objective of the rule of strict liability with respect to dangerous products is defeated if the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant was negligent, or the latter is allowed to defend upon the ground that he was free of negligence. It is the adequacy of the...