Doolin v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 25 September 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:16-cv-778-J-34PDB
• Parties: STACEY DOOLIN, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard E. Doolin, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

STACEY DOOLIN,as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard E. Doolin, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-778-J-34PDB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

September 25, 2018

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court as a products liability action pertaining to Defendants' asbestos-containing automotive products. Richard E. Doolin (the Decedent), was diagnosed with mesothelioma in approximately June of 2013, and died as a result of the mesothelioma on June 22, 2014, at the age of forty-three. His wife, Plaintiff Stacey Doolin (Plaintiff), maintains that the Decedent developed mesothelioma because of his exposure to "asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied and/or distributed" by Defendants. See Plaintiff's Amended Wrongful Death Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 4; Amended Complaint) ¶ 3. Plaintiff, as the personal representative of her husband's estate, initiated this action on June 22, 2016, and filed the Amended Complaint on July 8, 2016. According to the Amended Complaint, the Decedent was exposed to asbestos as a child when he would visit the automotive workshop where his father was employed. Id. ¶ 4. In addition, Plaintiff maintains that the Decedent continued to perform automotive work throughout his life, although not professionally, further exposing him to asbestos. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for state law negligence and strict liability premised on design defect and a failure to warn. See Amended Complaint at 6-13. Currently, the remaining Defendants in this action are Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Pneumo Abex LLC (Abex).¹

Ford and Abex have filed several Daubert² motions seeking to exclude the testimony of various experts, as well as motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). Upon review of these various motions, the Court determines that the dispositive issue in this case is that of causation. As such, in this Order, the Court first addresses Ford and Abex's motions to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff's causation experts, Arnold R. Brody, Ph.D., and Richard L. Kradin, M.D., D.T.M. & H. See Pneumo Abex LLC's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' [sic] Causation Experts, Dr. Kradin and Dr. Brody and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 118; Abex Motion to Exclude), filed November 13, 2017; Ford Motor Company's Amended Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Causation Experts Drs. Arnold Brody and Richard Kradin (Doc. 181; Ford Motion to Exclude), filed April 6, 2018. Plaintiff responded to these Motions on December 4, 2017, and April 25, 2018. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Causation Experts, Dr. Kradin and Dr. Brody (Doc. 143; Response to Abex Motion to Exclude); Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Ford Motor Company's Amended Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Causation Experts, Dr. Kradin andDr. Brody (Doc. 182; Response to Ford Motion to Exclude). After considering the record and the arguments of the parties, the Court finds, for the reasons set forth below, that the expert testimony on specific causation lacks reliability under Daubert. In light of this conclusion, the Court finds it appropriate to turn next to Ford and Abex's motions for summary judgment to the extent they challenge causation. See Pneumo Abex LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dispositive Motion) (Doc. 122; Abex MSJ) and Ford Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on All Claims and, Alternatively, for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Loss of Consortium Claims and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 127; Ford MSJ), both filed November 13, 2017. Plaintiff responded to these Motions on December 14, 2017. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 152; Response to Ford MSJ); Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 153; Response to Abex MSJ). With leave of Court, Abex and Ford both filed replies in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment on January 10, 2017. See Pneumo Abex LL'S Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 167; Abex Reply); Ford Motor Company's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on all Claims and, Alternatively, for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Loss of Consortium Claims (Doc. 165; Ford Reply). Given the absence of any reliable expert testimony on the issue of specific causation, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on causation, and therefore, determines that summary judgment is due to be entered in favor of Ford and Abex. The Court's reasoning follows.

I. Factual Background

The Decedent was born in 1970, the youngest of Edward and Linda Doolin's three children. See Ford MSJ, Ex. B: Deposition of Edward Doolin Volume 1 (Doc. 127-2; Ed Doolin Dep. Vol. 1) at 17. In 1973, the Decedent's father, Edward Doolin (Ed Doolin), began working in Pennsylvania for Teen Challenge, a non-profit, faith-based ministry focused on teenage alcoholics and drug addicts. Id. at 16, 19, 71. Ed Doolin worked for Teen Challenge as the head of the shop department where he would teach basic auto mechanic skills to the teenagers in the program. Id. at 71-73. Ed Doolin spent at least six hours a day, Monday through Friday, working in the shop or in the classroom adjoining the shop. Id. at 71, 73-74. He remained in this position for approximately ten years, leaving in 1983. Id. at 20-21.

In the Teen Challenge workshop, Ed Doolin, and approximately three assistants, would work with around six to ten students at a time performing basic auto mechanic procedures. Id. at 71, 73. The vehicles used for this work were owned by the Teen Challenge ministry itself or by members of the staff, although on rare occasions a vehicle came from someone outside the organization. Id. at 80. Ed Doolin testified that there was at least one, and usually several vehicles in the shop on any given day. Id. at 85. Over the ten-year span that Ed Doolin worked at Teen Challenge, he recalls the ministry owning two GMC buses, several Ford pick-up trucks, a Chevrolet and a Dodge pick-up truck, as well as a new Ford 15-passenger van. Id. at 85-86, 88-89. He also recalls that "[s]ome of the staff had—had new Fords. One—one—I think they mostly were smaller, like F150 size pickup trucks, F100 or F150," but he is not sure how many. Id. at 89. Ed Doolin also remembers that when he first began working at Teen Challenge the ministryowned "10 Ford smaller vans, the Econoline vans," dating back to the 1960s, which were phased out over time. Id. at 90-91. According to Ed Doolin, the people at the Ministry "were pretty much Ford people when I started there." Id. at 91. In addition, Ed Doolin recalls working on one Ford tractor while at Teen Challenge. Id. at 92-93.

Ed Doolin testified that brake work was "pretty common" during his time at Teen Challenge, and such work was being done "probably at least once a week and [he] wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that." Id. at 103.³ Ed Doolin specifically recalls performing brake work on the Ford Econoline vans but does not know whether he ever worked on the Ford tractor's brakes. Id. at 93. Ed Doolin was also in charge of ordering replacement parts while he worked at Teen Challenge and would order replacement brakes from A&G Automotive, a NAPA store. Id. at 96-97. According to Ed Doolin, he never bought replacement brakes from a Ford dealership. Id. at 98. He testified that he would place a brake order based on the year and make of the vehicle, without requesting any particular brand, and he would generally receive Bendix or Rayloc brakes, more often Rayloc, and possibly other brands as well. Id. at 100-03.⁴ Ed Doolin recalls briefly sanding or grinding brake linings while at Teen Challenge, to "rough them up," "probably"every time he replaced brakes. See Ford MSJ, Ex. C: Deposition of Edward Doolin Volume 2 (Doc. 127-3; Ed Doolin Dep. Vol. 2) at 95. He also testified that he used compressed air to blow out dust when performing brake work. Id. In addition, Ed Doolin testified that he recalls doing clutch work while at Teen Challenge, including sanding the friction material on a clutch plate for "maybe a minute." Id. at 42-43.⁵ This clutch work included using an air hose for ten to fifteen seconds to blow the dust out of the bell housing. Id. at 50-51. Clutch work was done "somewhere between once a day and once a month," and done on a variety of vehicles, "mostly Fords and Chevys and—and some Dodges." Id. at 43, 48.

Beginning around the time he was six years old, the Decedent would occasionally visit his father's workshop at the Teen Challenge facility. See Ed Doolin Dep. Vol. 1 at 82. Ed Doolin's best estimate is that the Decedent was there once or twice a week, sometimes more in the summer, sometimes less during the school year, and for varying lengths of time. Id. at 80-84. Indeed, the Doolins lived in a house on the Teen Challenge main campus which was very close to the shop, so the Decedent "just had to go across a garden to get from the house to the shop and back and forth." Id. at 23-24, 83. Given this proximity, Ed Doolin testified that when his children were little they liked to "just come around and see what's going on." Id. at 83. At some point, although Ed Doolin does not recall what age, the Decedent began to help with the work at the auto shop. See EdDoolin Dep. Vol. 2 at 47. According to Ed Doolin, the Decedent was doing hands-on work when he was twelve, although "[p]robably, not much," such as washing cars and changing tires, but by thirteen, "he was pretty capable of doing a good bit of automotive work." Id. at 66-67.

With respect to Ford products, Ed Doolin has no specific recollection of the Decedent being present in the shop while Ed...