Anderson v. Sybron Corp., s. 65115

• Decision Date: 11 January 1983
• Docket Number: Nos. 65115,65116,s. 65115
• Citation: 165 Ga.App. 566,299 S.E.2d 160
• Parties: ANDERSON v. SYBRON CORPORATION. LEWALLEN v. SYBRON CORPORATION.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 160

299 S.E.2d 160

ANDERSON v. SYBRON CORPORATION.

LEWALLEN v. SYBRON CORPORATION.

Nos. 65115, 65116.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 11, 1983.

G. Larry Bonner, Augusta, for appellant in both cases.

A. Rowland Dye, Augusta, for appellee in both cases.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

The appellants in these companion cases are plaintiffs who sued appellee Sybron Corp., manufacturer of a sterilizer machine used by appellants at the Kendall Company plant in Augusta from about 1973 to 1977. The sterilizer machine utilized a chemical known as ethylene oxide (ETO), and allegedly leaked, causing gas from the sterilizer to escape. In April, 1981 and July, 1981 respectively, appellants Lewallen and Anderson separately sued Sybron for peripheral neuropathy (cataracts) resulting from their contact with the gas. Both appellants first experienced physical problems which they had knowledge or notice were associated with their contact with ETO as early as 1976 and 1977.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant Sybron, on the basis of the statute of limitations bar. Held:

We held in King v. Seitzingers, 160 Ga.App. 318, 320, 287 S.E.2d 252, a similar products liability case, that "a tort cause of action does not accrue unless the plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence should have known that he suffered an injury.... [The] cause of action does not accrue and the statute of limitations did not run against him until he knew or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered not only the nature of his injury but also the causal connection between the injury and the alleged negligent conduct of appellee." (Emphasis supplied.) We do not find this rule so obscure or difficult to understand; it is a fair rule in the case of toxic substances whose effects may not be known, or which by their insidious nature may not manifest and causally be identified for many years.

The evidence in this case shows without material dispute that, both appellants knew or should have known as early as 1976 or 1977, that their contact with ETO was causing (and would probably continue to cause) certain physical problems, mainly associated with physical (not eye) and motor-type disabilities. The appellants ceased to work with the sterilizer machine upon the advice of their physicians. Their illnesses took various forms and worsened. In 1980 both appellants were operated on for cataracts (peripheral neuropathy). There is much evidence, and therefore certainly material issues of fact, that appellant Lewallen was told by his physician that his cataracts were caused by contact with ETO between January, 1980 and August, 1980, and Lewallen subsequently informed Anderson of the same. The evidence, which is not precisely clear, does show that while the treating...