Bobo v. Tenn. Valley Auth.

Decision Date26 April 2017
Docket NumberNo. 15-15271,15-15271
Citation855 F.3d 1294
Parties Barbara BOBO, et al., Plaintiffs, Melissa Ann Bobo, co-personal representative of the Estate of Barbara Bobo, deceased, Shannon Jean Cox, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Misty A. Farris, Lisa White Shirley, Jay E. Stuemke, Christopher J. Panatier, Rachel Perkins, Jeffrey B. Simon, Charles E. Soechting, Jr., Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, DALLAS, TX, Rebekah Keith McKinney, Watson McKinney, LLP, HUNTSVILLE, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

James S. Chase, Edward C. Meade, Edwin Warren Small, Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of General Counsel, KNOXVILLE, TN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN, Circuit Judge, and LAMBERTH,* District Judge.

ED CARNES, Chief Judge:

In return for the loan of life, we each owe God a death.1 Payment in full is a non-negotiable term of the debt, but the timing and circumstances in which remittance is made varies. The question that lies at the bottom of this case is whether the Tennessee Valley Authority caused Barbara Bobo to die sooner and suffer more in the course of dying than she otherwise would have. The legal issues are more complicated, as legal issues often are, but that question is what the case is about, why it is here.

Barbara Bobo's husband, James "Neal" Bobo, worked for the TVA for more than twenty-two years.2 While at TVA, he was diagnosed with asbestos-induced lung cancer

and in 1997 died from a heart attack. Mrs. Bobo was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2011. She underwent thoracentesis, in which a long needle was used to remove two liters of fluid from the space between the lining of the outside of her lungs and the wall of her chest. She also underwent multiple rounds of chemotherapy, which she referred to as the "Red Devil," because of the side effects she experienced from it—side effects which included, among other things, pain when drinking fluids and also spitting up raw flesh. In June 2012 her doctor performed a pleurectomy

on Mrs. Bobo, removing one of her ribs and the pleural lining of one of her lungs.

She died from mesothelioma

in 2013. Before she died, she filed a lawsuit claiming that TVA's negligence resulted in her being exposed to "take-home" asbestos when she washed her husband's work clothes over the years. After a three-day bench trial, the district court entered judgment against TVA. This is TVA's appeal.

I.

We incorporate by reference the facts of this case that are set out in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion, Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority , 138 F.Supp.3d 1285 (N.D. Ala. 2015), although for the reader's convenience, we will repeat some of the more significant facts here. From 1975 until 1997, Mr. Bobo worked as a laborer and labor foreman for TVA, primarily at its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama. His duties included sweeping up insulation residue, which generated dust that would settle onto his clothing. Most of that insulation was white. At times Mr. Bobo worked in a radiologically contaminated area, referred to as a "C-Zone," where he was required to wear protective clothing. Other times he worked in his own clothes, which typically were clean when he left for work but dirty and dusty when he returned home.

One of Mr. Bobo's co-workers testified that Mr. Bobo often cleaned up white pipe insulation, and one contractor who installed insulation at Browns Ferry testified that the insulation contained asbestos, and that most of the asbestos insulation was white. A TVA maintenance director also testified that all of the asbestos insulation that was removed from Browns Ferry during TVA's asbestos abatement procedures was white. Based on the witnesses' testimony, along with TVA documents confirming that asbestos products were used throughout the plant, the district court found that the "preponderance of the evidence ... established that a significant quantity of asbestos fibers accumulated on the clothing worn by Mr. Bobo when he swept insulation residue in the non-C-Zone areas" at Browns Ferry.

During the twenty-two years her husband worked for TVA, Mrs. Bobo washed his work clothes twice each week, an estimated two thousand times in all.3 Before putting those clothes in the washing machine, she would shake the dust off of them. She testified in her deposition that there was so much dust when she shook out the clothes the laundry room would appear "foggy."4 She would inhale some of that dust. Based on her testimony and other evidence, the district court found that Mr. Bobo's work clothes were covered with asbestos fibers and that it was "more likely than not that [she] unknowingly inhaled dangerous concentrations of asbestos fibers as she ‘shook out’ " his work clothes.

Before and then during the time of Mr. Bobo's employment at TVA (from 1975 to 1997), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued federal regulations, and TVA established internal procedures addressing asbestos exposure. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 required federal agencies like TVA to establish and maintain occupational health and safety programs consistent with OSHA's standards. See 29 U.S.C. § 668(a).5 In the years following the enactment of that law, OSHA began issuing regulations to minimize asbestos exposure that included maximum exposure limits, monitoring and testing procedures, and safety protocols. One regulation required employers to provide employees who would be exposed to asbestos above permissible limits with protective clothing, changing rooms, and separate lockers in order to prevent their work clothes from contaminating their "street clothes." The same regulation also required employers like TVA to launder asbestos-contaminated clothing in a way that would "prevent the release of airborne asbestos fibers in excess of the exposure limits." OSHA's asbestos regulations became more stringent over time.

TVA adopted internal policies similar to the OSHA regulations. For example, in 1978 TVA's Nuclear Power Division adopted a safety manual which, among other things, required that employees exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos be provided with two separate lockers. It mandated that: "One locker shall be used for street clothes and must not be contaminated with asbestos." Browns Ferry Standard Practice 14.45 also provided that "[e]mployees exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos shall wear an approved respirator and protective overalls...." The district court found that this requirement applied "to any quantity of asbestos exposure" because it was not explicitly confined to "concentrations of asbestos dust in excess of the permissible limits," as other requirements in Standard Practice 14.45 were. The court also found that, in violation of the company's own mandatory directives, "TVA did not provide laborers with protective clothing, separate lockers, or separate showers, unless they worked in a C-Zone."

II.

After Mrs. Bobo was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma

in 2011, she sued TVA and eight other defendants in federal court, alleging that take-home asbestos exposure caused her illness. She brought claims based on, among other things, strict liability, premises liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and conspiracy. At various points in the proceedings, Mrs. Bobo stipulated to the dismissal of her claims against the eight other defendants. The case ultimately proceeded to trial against TVA on her negligence claim.

After Mrs. Bobo died from mesothelioma

in 2013, the court substituted her two daughters, who are serving as personal representatives of her estate, as plaintiffs. Following a three-day bench trial, the court held TVA liable based on three analytical steps. First, it concluded that, under Alabama law, TVA owed Mrs. Bobo a duty of care to prevent take-home asbestos exposure because, among other reasons, the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. Second, the court found that TVA breached that duty by failing to enforce mandatory safety protocols that were designed to prevent asbestos from leaving Browns Ferry. Third, it concluded that exposure to asbestos attributable to TVA was a "substantial factor" that contributed to Mrs. Bobo's development of mesothelioma

.

The district court initially awarded the plaintiffs damages of $3,000,000 for pain and suffering, plus $547,008.93 in medical expenses, less an offset of $136,176.37, for a total amount of $3,410,832.56. The court later amended the judgment in light of post-trial settlements, which resulted in a final total damages award of $3,391,420.31.

III.

TVA challenges the district court's judgment on multiple grounds. To begin with, it contends that the district court erred in two respects regarding the evidence used to support the findings in favor of Mrs. Bobo. TVA argues that the district court should not have considered Mr. Bobo's state court deposition because it was not part of the record of this federal trial. TVA also argues that the court abused its discretion in relying on expert testimony the plaintiffs offered to support a finding that exposure to asbestos was the proximate cause of Mrs. Bobo's mesothelioma

.

A.

We start with TVA's argument that the district court erred in considering the state court deposition testimony of Mr. Bobo to support its finding that he had been exposed to asbestos while employed by TVA. The court had ruled before trial that deposition testimony was inadmissible but then considered that testimony at trial. Assuming that was an abuse of discretion, see, e.g. , United States v. Bradberry , 466 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006), it was harmless because there was plenty of other evidence proving the same fact.

At his deposition, Mr. Bobo testified about his exposure to asbestos. He explained that he was directed to assist employees who installed insulation materials made from (or that contained) asbestos fibers; that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Inc.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 11, 2018
    ...from the first jurisdiction to recognize a duty to cohabitants of employees in asbestos cases. See, e.g., Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority , 855 F.3d 1294, 1307 (11th Cir. 2017) (applying Alabama law) (finding that "TVA did have a duty not to expose [its employee’s wife] to the dangers of......
  • Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 2021
    ...basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.’ ").16 See also Bobo v. Tenn. Valley Auth. , 855 F.3d 1294, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony stating there is no evid......
  • In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 31, 2020
    ...[state] courts would adopt the majority view on a legal issue in the absence of indications to the contrary." Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Auth. , 855 F.3d 1294, 1304 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Wammock v. Celotex Corp. , 835 F.2d 818, 820 (11th Cir. 1988) ). However, when a federal court is calle......
  • Glenn v. 3M Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 2023
    ...causative of disease"). [19] This distinction was also made in Rost, 151 A.3d at 1045-46; see also Bobo v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 855 F.3d 1294, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony stating "there is no evidence that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT