Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1989 |
| Citation | 558 A.2d 461,115 N.J. 252 |
| Parties | , 14 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1021 William B. MILLISON and Marie Millison, his wife; Vernon G. Kronmaier and Dorothy Kronmaier, his wife; Susan Schwebel, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Harold Schwebel; Clarence Schwebel and Geraldine Schwebel, his wife; Frank Baptiste and Catherine Baptiste, his wife; and Edward B. Agar and Eileen Agar, his wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY, William E. Neeld, Jr., M.D.; G.F. Reichwein, M.D., Defendants-Appellants, and Johns-Manville Corporation; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation; Keene Corporation; Celotex Corporation; Raybestos-Manhattan Corporation; Sepco Corporation; Amatex Corporation; Philip Carey Company; United Asbestos and Rubber Company, a/k/a Unarco; Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corporation ACS Industries, Inc.; Bird and Sons, Inc.; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; Fiberboard Corporation; Fiberboard Corporation, Pabco Div.; Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.; Childers Products Company; GAF Corporation; Pittsburgh Corning Corp.; H.K. Porter Company; Rock Wool Manufacturing Company; Philadelphia Asbestos Corporation, d/b/a Pacor, Inc.; Southern Asbestos Company; Delaware Insulation Company; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; J.W. Roberts, Ltd., A Division of Turner & Newall, Ltd.; John Doe Corporations (1-47); Albinas Smulkstys, M.D.; John Doe(s), M.D. and Richard Roe, M.D., Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Thomas L. Morrissey, for defendants-appellants (Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, attorneys, Rosemary Alito, of counsel, Silvio J. DeCarli and Kevin P. Duffy, Newark, on the brief).
David Jacoby, for plaintiffs-respondents (Tomar, Seliger, Simonoff, Adourian & O'Brien, attorneys, David Jacoby, Joshua M. Spielberg and Esther Berezofsky, Haddonfield, on the brief).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division in its opinion reported at 226 N.J.Super. 572, 545 A.2d 213.
We add to the Appellate Division's thorough analysis only the following observations. Defendants contend that defendant Dr. William L. Neeld, an employee of defendant du Pont, cannot properly be held liable because there is no evidence that Neeld reviewed the medical records of plaintiffs Millison and Agar and thereafter concealed knowledge of those plaintiffs' asbestos-related diseases. In fact, the record contains evidence permitting inferences that during 1979 Neeld was less than fully forthcoming with information concerning Millison's and Agar's asbestos-related abnormalities.
For example, an August 13, 1979, letter written by Neeld indicated that Millison had been identified in May of that year as having pleural thickening and calcification. In June, Millison had met with Neeld and was told that a diagnosis of asbestosis that had been made by Millison's physician was, in essence, not fully supported. It is unclear whether Neeld made mention at that time of the May finding of pleural abnormalities. A record entry by Neeld showed that he told Millison that his "x-ray findings could be related to occupational exposure to asbestos," but that without further evidence Neeld was "not going to make any recommendations that [Millison] be removed from the work he had been doing."
Millison testified at trial that when he told Neeld of his own physician's diagnosis of asbestosis, Neeld responded that he did not have all the symptoms. He further testified that when h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chems., Inc.
...to assure the safety and health of their employees in the face of warnings." Id. at 608, 628 A.2d 710 (citing Millison v. E.I. du Pont, 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989) ; Beshada, 90 N.J. 191, 447 A.2d 539 ). Dual warnings -- possibly redundant warnings -- are warranted because workers "ex......
-
Crispin v. Volkswagenwerk AG
...opinions or conclusions. See Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 226 N.J.Super. 572, 593, 545 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1988), aff'd 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989); Biro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 57 N.J. 204, 205, 271 A.2d 1 (1970); Gunter v. Fischer Scientific American, 193 N.J.Super.......
-
Kane v. Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc.
...citation or mandate. See Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 226 N.J.Super. 572, 594-95, 545 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1988), aff'd, 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989) and cases cited therein (OSHA citations are the opinions of investigators and do not carry with them the indicia of reliability tha......
-
Coffman v. Keene Corp.
...fail to take reasonable measures to assure the safety and health of their employees in the face of warnings. E.g., Millison v. E.I. du Pont, 115 N.J. 252, 558 A.2d 461 (1989) (noting that employer intentionally disregarded evidence of health hazards to its employees); see also Beshada v. Jo......