Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
Decision Date | 26 January 1984 |
Docket Number | Nos. 80-5416,80-5417,JOHNS-MANVILLE,s. 80-5416 |
Citation | 722 F.2d 1289 |
Parties | Bankr. L. Rep. P 69,507, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1205 John Ed CLAY and wife, Marie Clay, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.SALES CORP., Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Curtis T. BAILEY and wife, Effie Bailey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.SALES CORP., Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Michael Y. Rowland (argued), Gilreath, Pryor & Rowland, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Fred H. Cagle, Jr. (argued), Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, W. Kyle Carpenter, Knoxville, Tenn., for Johns-Manville.
Donald F. Paine Egerton, McAfee, Armistead & Davis, Harry P. Ogden, Dwight E. Tarwater (argued), Knoxville, Tenn., for Raybestos.
Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, and CHURCHILL, * District Judge.
In these two cases plaintiffs John Ed Clay and Curtis Bailey, each joined by his wife, brought actions for damages against defendants Johns-Manville Sales Corporation and Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., on the basis of products liability claims resulting from plaintiffs' exposure to asbestos containing products manufactured by the defendants. The cases were tried in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee and ended in jury verdicts for the defendants.
Appellants urge that the District Judge committed reversible error in a variety of ways. In our judgment, three of these require our discussion.
Before turning to these issues, however, we must point out that Johns-Manville as previously recognized in a number of cases which we cite in the footnote below, 1 has filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1979, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1101, et seq. Supp. III 1979, in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. This action brought into play the automatic stay provision set out in Sec. 362(a)(1) of the Act, which reads:
Sec. 362. Automatic stay
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of--
(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title; ....
The language of Sec. 362(a)(1) quoted above states flatly that filing of a bankruptcy petition "operates as a stay." Although no motion to stay has been filed by Johns-Manville in this court, we hereby order the appeal as to Johns-Manville to be stayed, pending further action by the parties or the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, and we further instruct the clerk to place the file as it pertains to Johns-Manville in inactive status, pending the actions just referred to.
Turning now to the other issues remaining in relation to defendant Raybestos-Manhattan, the first issue pertains to the judge's instruction to the jury on the possible effect of a general 10-year statute of limitations, T.C.A. Sec. 29-28-103, which became effective in the State of Tennessee on July 1, 1978. This statute was amended approximately one year later by the Tennessee legislature by the adoption of T.C.A. Sec. 29-28-103(b) which provided that the 10-year statute of limitations was inapplicable "to any action resulting from exposure to asbestos." The District Judge in these cases instructed the jury in effect that if the jury found that plaintiffs during the year the 10-year statute of limitations was in effect for all cases discovered or should have discovered that they were suffering from asbestosis, then the jury should find for the defendants.
Although it seems obvious to us that the legislature of Tennessee, in adopting the 10-year statute of limitations without any exemption of asbestos disease in the first instance, simply made a serious error which it has now sought to correct, appellees argue that the Tennessee Constitution and the Tennessee Supreme Court have mandated the interpretation which the District Judge gave to this jury. See Article I, Section 20 of the Tennessee Constitution, which provides: "That no retrospective law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made." See Ford Motors v. Moulton, 511 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 870, 95 S.Ct. 129, 42 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974), reaffirmed, 533 S.W.2d 295 (Tenn.1976).
This would obviously produce a harsh result from what appears clearly to have been a legislative mistake. Even so, the federal courts in the exercise of their diversity jurisdiction would be obligated to follow state law as that law has been construed by the state's highest court, absent reason to believe from subsequent state court developments that such would no longer be the ruling of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Such reason has now been found in a recent case in this court which raised this identical issue from a similar ruling by the same District Judge. In Murphree v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 696 F.2d 459 (6th Cir.1982), with one of this court's Tennessee judges writing for a unanimous panel, the court held on the principal legal issue presented in our instant case:
Our own Chief Justice [Fones] dissented from the majority opinion in Ford Motor Company v. Moulton, supra. We quote from his dissent:
"The following principles are stated concisely in Hodge v. Service Machine Company, 438 F.2d 347 (6th Cir.1971).
To hold that a products liability action, which is a recognized legal right, is barred by a statute of limitations before any injury is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia
...U.S. 873, 107 S.Ct. 38, 93 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 722 F.2d 1289, 1295 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1253, 104 S.Ct. 3537, 82 L.Ed.2d 842 (1984), quoting Weinstein & Berger, Evidence § 804(b......
-
School Bd. of City of Norfolk v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
...511 S.W.2d 690, 695 (Tenn.) cert. denied 419 U.S. 870, 95 S.Ct. 129, 42 L.Ed.2d 109, called into doubt by, Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 722 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied sub nom. Raymark Industries, Inc. v. Clay, 467 U.S. 1253, 104 S.Ct. 3537, 82 L.Ed.2d 842 (1984) (legislat......
-
U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
...we adopted a "motive to develop the testimony" test, saying (325 Md. at 440-442, 601 A.2d at 642-643, quoting Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 722 F.2d 1289, 1295 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1253, 104 S.Ct. 3537, 82 L.Ed.2d 842 " ' "if it appears that in the former suit a part......
-
Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 90-6057
...715 F.2d 124, 126-27 (4th Cir.1983); Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp., 706 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.1983); Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 722 F.2d 1289, 1290-91 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1253, 104 S.Ct. 3537, 82 L.Ed.2d 842 (1984); Pitts v. Unarco Industries, Inc., 698 F.2d 31......
-
Hearsay
...the defendants’ motive in questioning a researcher at a deposition was similar to that at trial. Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp ., 722 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir. 1983). Deposition testimony admitted against several asbestos companies, only two of which were represented at a deposition in an ear......
-
Hearsay
...the defendants’ motive in question- ing a researcher at a deposition was similar to that at trial. Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp ., 722 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir. 1983). Deposition testimony admitted against several asbestos companies, only two of which were represented at a deposition in an e......
-
Hearsay
...the defendants’ motive in questioning a researcher at a deposition was similar to that at trial. Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp ., 722 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir. 1983). Deposition testimony admitted against several asbestos companies, only two of which were represented at a deposition in an ear......
-
Hearsay
...the defendants’ motive in questioning a researcher at a deposition was similar to that at trial. Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp ., 722 F.2d 1289 (6th Cir. 1983). Deposition testimony admitted against several asbestos companies, only two of which were represented at a deposition in an ear......