Monsanto Co. v. Hall, No. 2004-IA-00918-SCT.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Citation: 912 So.2d 134
• Docket Number: No. 2004-IA-00918-SCT.
• Parties: MONSANTO COMPANY v. Bobby G. HALL, et al.
• Decision Date: 06 October 2005

912 So.2d 134 MONSANTO COMPANY
v.
Bobby G. HALL, et al. No. 2004-IA-00918-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 6, 2005.

Page 135

James Lawrence Jones, Bradley S. Clanton, Scott W. Pedigo, Robert M. Arentson, Jr., Robert H. Bass, Jackson, attorneys for appellant.

Stacey L. Sims, Anthony Sakalarios, Hattiesburg, attorneys for appellees.

Before WALLER, P.J., EASLEY and CARLSON, JJ.

CARLSON, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. This asbestos product liability case is before us on Monsanto Company's appeal from an interlocutory order denying Monsanto's motion for summary judgment. A three-justice panel of this Court previously granted Monsanto's petition for an interlocutory appeal. See M.R.A.P. 5. Today's case arises from the same litigation which was the subject of our recent opinion in Gorman-Rupp Co. v. Hall, 908 So.2d 749 (Miss.2005). Consistent with our decision in Gorman-Rupp, we reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment and render judgment here in favor of Monsanto.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Page 136

IN THE TRIAL COURT¹

¶ 2. Bobby G. Hall, Thurman Ferguson, Delano Reeves, Israel Stewart, Jr., Wilbert White, Aubrey Arnold, and James Hemphill worked in at least one common work site, International Paper in Natchez, Mississippi, and filed this suit against more than 270 defendants, including Monsanto, for injuries allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestos products, some of which were Monsanto's products present at IP in Natchez.² Monsanto filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiffs did not offer sufficient probative evidence regarding the necessary elements to establish a prima facie case. The trial judge denied summary judgment, and Monsanto now comes before us on interlocutory appeal as to whether the trial court's decision was proper.

¶ 3. Monsanto argues that the plaintiffs failed to prove the three elements necessary in a products liability action to survive summary judgment; namely, sufficient evidence of product identification, exposure, and proximate cause. See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-63 (Rev.2002). Monsanto relies on Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir.1986), arguing that, although Mississippi had not yet explicitly adopted the specific "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test from that Fourth Circuit case prior to the commencement of this litigation, this test embodies Mississippi law on products liability in asbestos cases and is proper in proving all three of the required elements; namely, product identification, exposure, and proximate cause. Because the plaintiffs' evidence did not consist of certain identification of Monsanto's products (but rather general descriptions of products like Monsanto's), Monsanto argues that the plaintiffs fail this test.

¶ 4. The plaintiffs argue that because summary judgment deals with existence of genuine issues of material facts, Monsanto's argument that a new legal standard should be officially adopted in Mississippi is misguided. The plaintiffs further assert that Monsanto must show first that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

DISCUSSION

¶ 5. The standard of review in considering on appeal a trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment is de novo. ...