Anderson v. SYBRON CORPORATION

• Decision Date: 11 January 1983
• Docket Number: 65115,65116.
• Citation: 353 S.E.2d 816,165 Ga. App. 566
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: ANDERSON v. SYBRON CORPORATION. LEWALLEN v. SYBRON CORPORATION.

165 Ga. App. 566

353 S.E.2d 816

ANDERSON v. SYBRON CORPORATION.

LEWALLEN v. SYBRON CORPORATION.

65115, 65116.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Decided January 11, 1983.

Rehearing Denied March 1, 1983.

G. Larry Bonner, for appellants.

A. Rowland Dye, A. Montague Miller, for appellee.

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 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 SE2d 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 did not accrue and the statute of limitation 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 specific injury may not be known, or which by their insidious nature may not manifest and causally be identified for some period of time.

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. There is much evidence, and therefore certainly issues of fact, that appellant Lewallen was told by his physician sometime between January 1980 and August 1980, that his cataracts were caused by contact with ETO and Lewallen subsequently informed Anderson of the same. The evidence, which is not precisely clear, does show that while the treating neurologist diagnosed a link between neuropathy in general and "some toxic substance," or suspected the same but did not specifically tell the appellants, the physician did not specifically pinpoint ETO as the culprit for some...