Daniels v. Arvinmeritor, Inc.

Decision Date19 December 2019
Docket NumberNo. 1-19-0170,1-19-0170
Parties Sharon DANIELS, Individually and as Special Administrator for the Estate of Patrick M. O'Reilly, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARVINMERITOR, INC.; CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., Merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Crane Co., Individually and as Successor in Interest to Cochrane, Inc., a/k/a Jenkins Valves, Inc., and Successor in Interest to Chapman Valves; CSR, Ltd., a/k/a Consolidated Sugar and Refining; Flowserve Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to BW/IP International, Inc., f/k/a Byron Jackson Pump Division and Successor in Interest to Edward Valves ; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to C.H. Wheeler ; General Electric Company; John Crane, Inc.; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Trane U.S., Inc., f/k/a American Standard, Inc.; and Weil-McLain Company, Defendants (John Crane, Inc., Defendant-Appellant).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Michael A. Pollard, Michael C. McCutcheon, Michael D. Lehrman, of Baker & McKenzie LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.

Klint L. Bruno, of The Bruno Firm LLC, of Chicago, and Jennifer Gelman, Ethan Flint, Troyce Wolf, and Demetrios Zacharopoulos, of Flint Law Firm LLC, of Edwardsville, for appellee.

JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The plaintiff, Sharon Daniels, as the special administrator of Patrick O'Reilly's estate, brought an action in the circuit court of Cook County against John Crane, Inc. (John Crane) and other manufacturers of asbestos-containing products, claiming O'Reilly's exposure to these asbestos products caused him to develop pleural mesothelioma. As the matter proceeded in the circuit court, the other defendants settled, leaving John Crane as the only remaining defendant at the time of trial. Following the trial, the jury found in plaintiff's favor and awarded damages in the amount of $6,022,814.06. Following the verdict, the trial court directed a $1,137,500 setoff consisting of the settlement amounts and entered judgment on the verdict in the amount of $4,885,314.06. John Crane later filed a posttrial motion for a new trial, which was denied.

¶ 2 On appeal, John Crane contends that the trial court erred in denying its posttrial motion because it (1) allowed one of plaintiff's medical experts to improperly testify that the "cumulative dose" of O'Reilly's exposure to all asbestos products caused his injuries, (2) provided inaccurate instructions to the jury regarding proximate cause and the state of the art in asbestos cases, (3) failed to include four settled defendants on the jury verdict form, and (4) did not properly analyze certain settlement agreements prior to entering findings of good faith. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Because of the limited issues raised on appeal, we recite only those facts relevant to the claims presented.

¶ 5 O'Reilly was a union pipefitter in Chicago from 1957 to 1998. In October 2016, O'Reilly was diagnosed as having pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining surrounding the inside of the chest wall and the surface of the lung.

¶ 6 On November 17, 2016, O'Reilly filed a complaint alleging negligence, willful and wanton conduct, civil conspiracy, negligent spoliation of evidence, willful and wanton spoliation of evidence, and loss of consortium claims against John Crane and other manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. O'Reilly alleged that his injuries occurred due to the exposure to asbestos at his workplace. O'Reilly died from mesothelioma in April 2017. His daughter Sharon Daniels, as representative of his estate, became the plaintiff. The complaint was amended to add survival and wrongful death claims.

¶ 7 In anticipation of trial, Crane Co. (a separate defendant) filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Jerrold Abraham.1 John Crane joined in the motion. Relevant to this appeal, the motion sought to exclude Dr. Abraham's testimony because it did not meet the requirements for testimony establishing causation under Illinois law. Specifically, John Crane argued that Dr. Abraham based his opinions on O'Reilly's "asbestos exposure (cumulative)" and that this testimony failed to meet the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" standard for causation testimony adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court in Thacker v. UNR Industries, Inc. , 151 Ill. 2d 343, 177 Ill.Dec. 379, 603 N.E.2d 449 (1992). At argument on the motion in limine , John Crane further argued that Dr. Abraham's testimony should be excluded because it did not meet the Frye standard as his opinions amounted to a generally unaccepted scientific theory that "each and every" exposure to asbestos fibers causes disease. The trial court denied the motion in limine .

¶ 8 Before the commencement of the trial, numerous defendants except John Crane were dismissed, either because of general dismissals or through settlements.2 Four of the eight defendants who settled sought good faith findings from the trial court: Trane U.S., Inc. (Trane); Weil-McLain; Crane Co.; and CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse).3 John Crane objected to the good faith findings as to Trane and Westinghouse, arguing that plaintiff had not disclosed the settlement amounts or the allocation of liability. The trial court overruled the objections and entered the good faith findings.

¶ 9 The matter then proceeded to trial where plaintiff presented evidence with regard to the decedent's injuries and subsequent death, the family's loss as a result of his death, John Crane's knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, and John Crane's failure to notify the decedent of these known dangers. We will, however, summarize only the evidence relevant to the issues discussed in this opinion.

¶ 10 As already indicated, O'Reilly worked as a pipefitter at various locations in Chicago from 1957 to 1998. Details about O'Reilly's work were presented to the jury through two videotaped depositions that were conducted prior to his death. According to O'Reilly, his work as a pipefitter involved primarily replacing and installing valves and gaskets. The valves were manufactured by Crane Co., Chapman Valves, Edward Valves, Jenkins Valves, Inc., Jamesbury, Westinghouse, Powell, and Leslie. The gaskets were manufactured by Garlock and John Crane. The packing material that was used to form a seal between the gasket and the pipe was also manufactured by John Crane. O'Reilly testified that at the time he was working with these products he was unaware that they contained asbestos.

¶ 11 In order to replace the valves and gaskets, O'Reilly had to remove the insulation that surrounded the pipe. Removing the insulation created dust, which he inhaled, and he only wore a mask "once in a while." To remove the gaskets, he first had to remove the packing material that surrounded the gasket. In order to do so, he needed to remove the packing material with a pick, chisel, and hammer to complete the task. This process also created dust which he inhaled. Once the packing was removed, he would dislodge the old gasket with a scraper and a wire brush. Occasionally this work would require the use of an electric sander. This too generated dust that he would inhale. O'Reilly then had to fit the new gasket to the pipe, which at times required him to modify the precut gaskets to fit the flanges, which he did in the pipefitter's shop. This involved cutting the gasket and punching holes in it for the insertion of bolts. According to O'Reilly, he worked with John Crane gaskets and packing on a daily basis.

¶ 12 Plaintiff, through the expert testimony of Dr. Arnold Brody, PhD, introduced evidence regarding the general nature of asbestos. Dr. Brody explained that there are three different types of asbestos, all which cause cancer : crocidolite (the most potent), amosite (the next most potent), and chrysotile (the least potent). Dr. Brody further explained that asbestos fibers are microscopic and are thus not visible to the naked eye. One million asbestos fibers can sit on the head of a pin and one billion asbestos fibers can sit on the tip of our finger. These fibers are odorless and tasteless, thus there is no way for an individual to know when asbestos enters the body. As it relates to the lungs, asbestos can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. According to Dr. Brody, asbestos exposure is the only known cause of mesothelioma in the United States. While asbestos fibers are in the ambient air we breathe, this "background" exposure rarely causes cancer—only one in a million individuals contract cancer in this way.4

¶ 13 Dr. Gerald Markowitz, PhD, a professor of history, testified as an expert regarding the history of asbestos disease. According to Markowitz, the risk of asbestos was first discovered in England in 1898. In 1918, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that workers and bystanders exposed to asbestos were at risk of disease. Thereafter, in 1936, the Illinois state legislature specifically mentioned asbestos as a dangerous substance and provided compensation for workers injured by exposure to asbestos. By 1964, the United States government and those in the asbestos industry were aware of the risks of asbestos exposure through a conference organized by a preeminent asbestos researcher, Dr. Selikoff. Subsequently, in 1972 the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established to regulate asbestos.

¶ 14 Plaintiff's expert Dr. Abraham, a board-certified physician in anatomic pathology, testified regarding the cause of O'Reilly's mesothelioma. After reviewing O'Reilly's medical records, work history, deposition testimony, and pathology slides, Dr. Abraham opined that O'Reilly's exposure to asbestos from his work with John Crane gaskets and packing was a substantial contributing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hartley v. N. Am. Polymer Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 3, 2020
    ...court abuses its discretion where its ruling is so arbitrary or illogical that no reasonable person would adopt it." Daniels v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. , 2019 IL App (1st) 190170, ¶ 96, 438 Ill.Dec. 586, 146 N.E.3d 655. ¶ 30 In the case at bar, the trial court initially determined that defendant......

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