John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack, A97A0531
| Decision Date | 27 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A0531,A97A0531 |
| Citation | 489 S.E.2d 527,227 Ga.App. 538 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,022, 97 FCDR 2460 JOHN CRANE, INC. v. WOMMACK. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hawkins & Parnell, Dennis J. Manganiello, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lane & Gossett, C. Darrell Gossett, Brunswick, for appellee.
Edgar Wommack sued John Crane, Inc. ("Crane") for injuries he allegedly sustained from his exposure to asbestos contained in Crane's packing material. Wommack alleged, inter alia, that Crane knew or should have known about the hazards posed by the asbestos and that Crane was negligent in failing to warn him of those hazards. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Wommack. Crane appeals from the denial of his motions for directed verdict and new trial. For reasons which follow, we affirm.
1. We note initially that Crane's brief is in violation or Court of Appeals Rule 27(c)(1), which provides that "[t]he sequence of argument or arguments in the briefs shall follow the order of the enumeration of errors, and shall be numbered accordingly." Although Crane enumerates eleven errors, its brief contains only seven listed arguments which do not follow the order of the enumerations and which are not numbered.
Rule 27(c)(1) is more than a mere formality. It is a requirement which this Court imposes to ensure that all enumerations of error are addressed and to facilitate review of each enumeration. By failing to comply with the rule, Crane has hindered the Court's review of his assertions and has risked the possibility that certain enumerations will not be addressed. Accordingly, to the extent that we are able to discern which of the enumerations are supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument, we will address those enumerations. Pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 27(c)(2), however, all other enumerations will be treated as abandoned.
2. Crane asserts that the trial court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and new trial because there was no evidence that (1) Crane knew or should have known of any hazard with respect to asbestos packing; (2) Crane had any duty to warn Wommack of any hazards; (3) Crane's asbestos packing released any respirable asbestos fibers; and (4) Crane's packing was a substantial contributing factor of his disease.
" ... Southeastern Security Ins. Co. v. Hotle, 222 Ga.App. 161 162(1), 473 S.E.2d 256 (1996). Because the same standard is used to review Crane's enumerations concerning the trial court's denial of his motions for directed verdict and new trial, we will consider them together.
Viewed in a light most favorable to upholding the verdict, the evidence at trial showed as follows. Wommack worked as a pipefitter at ITT Rayonier from 1958 to 1973. During his employment there, Wommack used various types of packing material to prevent leaking around pressurized valves and other pipe fittings. Wommack testified that among these various types of packing materials, he used asbestos packing to contain steam or high-temperature water, and that he specifically remembered using Crane's asbestos packing "in the late '50s and '60s." Wommack further stated that it was common knowledge among pipefitters that the packing contained asbestos and that he knew it was Crane's packing by the name on the box and the paper in which it was wrapped.
George McKillop, a former product manager of Crane's packing division, acknowledged that Crane sold asbestos packing. In fact, the evidence showed that Crane started manufacturing products containing asbestos in approximately 1930, that the packing products at issue contained between 35 and 55 percent asbestos, and that Crane first put warning labels on the products in 1983. McKillop testified that based on Wommack's job description and his testimony that he used Crane's packing, he believed Wommack would have used two different asbestos packings sold by Crane.
The evidence further showed that Wommack became exposed to the asbestos fibers in the packing while removing old packing from pipes and installing new packing. Wommack testified that when he removed old packing "if the packing wasn't in real bad shape, you could take a packing puller, which looked like a corkscrew, and you could screw it down in the packing and pull it out." On some occasions, however, Wommack stated that these very fine particles, which he could see, would become airborne and that this happened throughout his years as a pipefitter. Wommack was sure that some of the old packing he removed was Crane's because it was from valves he had previously packed. According to Wommack, he was also exposed to asbestos when he installed new packing. He stated that if the packing was not the correct length he would cut it with a hacksaw and "some fiber come off of it [sic] ... like if you sawed a piece of lumber with it."
In 1993, due to concern that he may have developed an asbestos-related lung disease, Wommack went to see Dr. Richard Saleeby. Based on his examination and various tests and X-rays, Dr. Saleeby subsequently diagnosed Wommack as having asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural changes. Dr. Saleeby further concluded that these conditions resulted from Wommack's exposure to asbestos in his work. Dr. Saleeby's diagnosis was confirmed at trial by testimony from two other physicians and two pathologists who examined Wommack's medical records and samples of Wommack's lung tissue.
(a) Wommack met his burden of proving that Crane knew or should have known of hazards associated with the asbestos contained in its packing when the packing was used in a foreseeable manner. See Bagley v. CSX Transp., 219 Ga.App. 544, 545(1), 465 S.E.2d 706 (1995); Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga.App. 331, 335-336(2), 319 S.E.2d 470 (1984); Talley v. City Tank Corp., 158 Ga.App. 130, 137(3), 279 S.E.2d 264 (1981).
The evidence showed that reports concerning dangers associated with the industrial use of asbestos were published in the United States in the 1930s. By 1964, as many as 1,000 studies were published concerning asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. According to one expert, publications concerning the hazards of asbestos were disseminated to asbestos-related industries were published in book form, and were available to read. The expert stated his opinion that the hazards of asbestos would have been "known to all industries working with asbestos" and that these industries and "[a]nybody who could read the word asbestos" should have known in 1938 about the hazards of asbestos.
From the foregoing evidence, the jury was authorized to find that, prior to the time of Wommack's exposure, there was substantial information available to Crane which would have informed it of the hazards associated with asbestos exposure. See generally Wells v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 788 F.2d 741, 745-746 (11th Cir.1986). See also Bishop v. Farhat, 227 Ga.App. 201, 489 S.E.2d 323...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Union Carbide Corp...
...expert's opinion that “background ... rate is basically zero”) (footnote omitted). See generally John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack, 227 Ga.App. 538, 541(2)(d), 489 S.E.2d 527 (1997) (judgment entered on verdict affirmed where expert testimony at trial showed that “asbestos fibers are intrinsicall......
-
Sinyard v. Georgia Power Company
...his own testimony that he worked "with boxes of insulation [that] were marked as containing asbestos"); John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack , 227 Ga. App. 538, 541-42 (3), 489 S.E.2d 527 (1997) (plaintiff's testimony that "I feel sure that I did" when asked if he removed Crane asbestos packing was ......
-
Holcomb v. Ga. Pac., LLC
...exposure, even if it is just one strand of asbestos, is a substantial factor in causing mesothelioma. See John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack, 227 Ga.App. 538, 489 S.E.2d 527, 531 (1997) (“Expert testimony showed that it is universally agreed that asbestos fibers are intrinsically dangerous and tha......
-
Davis v. John Crane, Inc.
...testimony from personal knowledge is sufficient to establish threshold product identification); John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack , 227 Ga. App. 538, 541-542 (3), 489 S.E.2d 527 (1997).5 At this stage, Davis’s testimony was sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The trial court thus erred in g......
-
The Effrontery Of The Asbestos Trust Transparency Legislation Efforts
...[as to whether the plaintiff's mesothelioma was caused by defendant's asbestos-containing products]."); John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack, 489 S.E.2d 527, 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) ("Expert testimony showed that it is universally agreed that asbestos fibers are intrinsically dangerous and that the ......
-
Product Liability - Franklin P. Brannen, Jr. and Jacob E. Daly
...since it was not safe for some people to use.11 The court rejected this argument based on comment j 4. John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack, 227 Ga. App. 538, 540, 489 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1997). 5. Bishop, 227 Ga. App. at 206, 489 S.E.2d at 328. These are by no means the only ways of proving the manufa......