Stinnett v. Tool Chemical Co., Inc., Docket Nos. 86586
| Decision Date | 06 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 86586,86587 |
| Citation | 411 N.W.2d 740,161 Mich.App. 467 |
| Parties | Clarence STINNETT and Donna Stinnett, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TOOL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant, and Ren Plastics, a division of Ciba-Geigy Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Garzel Plastics Industry, Inc., a Michigan corporation, Johnson Wax Company, a foreign corporation, United Resin, Inc., a Michigan corporation, Blehm Plastics, Inc., a Michigan corporation, M & R Corporation, a foreign corporation, Dow Chemical Company, a foreign corporation, Dow Corning Corporation, a Michigan corporation, BASF Wyandotte Corporation, a Michigan corporation, General Latex & Chemical Company, a foreign corporation, Pennwalt Corporation, a foreign corporation, Vulcan Chemical Company, a foreign corporation, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellants. Clarence STINNETT and Donna Stinnett, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TOOL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Ren Plastics, a division of Ciba-Geigy Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Garzel Plastics Industry, Inc., a Michigan corporation, Johnson Wax Company, a foreign corporation, United Resin, Inc., a Michigan corporation, Blehm Plastics, Inc., a Michigan corporation, M & R Corporation, a foreign corporation, Dow Chemical Company, a foreign corporation, Dow Corning Corporation, a Michigan corporation, BASF Wyandotte Corporation, a Michigan corporation, General Latex & Chemical Company, a foreign corporation, Pennwalt Corporation, a foreign corporation, Vulcan Chemical Company, a foreign corporation, jointly and severally, Defendants. 161 Mich.App. 467, 411 N.W.2d 740 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[161 MICHAPP 468] Meklir, Schreier, Nolish & Friedman, P.C. by Samuel A. Meklir and Steven A. Kohler, Southfield, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Feikens, Foster, Vander Male & DeNardis, P.C. by Ronald F. DeNardis and Robert
J. Gullo, Detroit, for defendant-appellant General Latex & Chemical Co.
Harvey, Kruse, Westen & Milan, P.C. by Gary L. Stec, Detroit, for defendants-appellants Pennwalt Corp. and Ren Plastics.
Clark, Klein & Beaumont by Charles D. Bavul, Detroit, for defendant-appellant Dow Corning Corp.
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn by Mark R. Werder, Detroit, for defendant-appellant Garzel Industries.
Stewart, Lascoe, Nowak & Flinn, P.C. by Eric G. Flinn, Sterling Heights, for defendant-appellant United Resins, Inc.
Kohl, Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Clark & Hampton by Marcia C. Jobe, Farmington Hills, for defendant-appellant Dow Chemical Co.
Conklin, Loesch & Cakavas by Michael C. Olson, Troy, for defendant Tool Chemical Co., Inc.
Before J.H. GILLIS, P.J., and MacKENZIE and ROBINSON, * JJ.
[161 MICHAPP 469] PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal of a products liability action filed in the Wayne Circuit Court against the manufacturers of all the different products Clarence Stinnett, hereinafter plaintiff, claims to have been exposed to during his employment at Ford Motor Company (his wife's claim is one for loss of consortium). In a motion brought by defendant Tool Chemical Company (Tool), and joined in by the other defendants, summary disposition was requested based upon the statute of limitations. MCR 2.116(C)(7). The trial judge denied the motion. Defendant Tool, in Docket No. 86587, and the remaining defendants, in Docket No. 86586, then filed applications for leave to appeal, which were granted. At the same time, this Court consolidated the appeals.
In his complaint, filed on August 31, 1983, plaintiff alleges to have suffered lung damage during his employment with Ford due to exposure to plastics and other chemicals manufactured by defendants. Plaintiff was hired by Ford as a plastics specialist at Ford's design center in February, 1977. Plaintiff's last day of employment with Ford was July 31, 1980.
While at Ford, plaintiff, who said he did not have any previous breathing problems, went to his family doctor, Dr. Conrad Pearl, D.O., on March 7, 1980, complaining of "slight stomach problems, coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath." While plaintiff thought he had the flu, Dr. Pearl made a nonspecific finding of sinusitus/bronchitis in a report dated March 13, 1980, with an expected recovery in seven to ten days. This report specifically indicated this condition was not related to plaintiff's employment. On March 25, 1980, Dr. Pearl noted that plaintiff's condition had improved and he could return to work.
While initially feeling some relief, plaintiff testified[161 MICHAPP 470] that his breathing problems continued to worsen until they caused him to terminate his employment with Ford on July 31, 1980. Plaintiff returned to Dr. Pearl on August 1 and 5, 1980. At this time chest x-rays were taken and they showed moderate infiltrates, compatible with bilateral interstitial pneumonitis.
While plaintiff said that Dr. Pearl could not diagnose his condition and did not tell plaintiff he was suffering from any type of lung disease, plaintiff testified at his deposition:
In the records of Dr. Pearl, there is an entry, dated August 19, 1980, reflecting chronic lung congestion, and that it is "probably job related."
After plaintiff's second visit to Dr. Pearl in August, plaintiff was referred to a specialist, Dr. Hecker, whom plaintiff saw in the middle of August, 1980. As to this visit, plaintiff testified:
[161 MICHAPP 471] "A. I don't remember his name. I only saw him once or twice.
Plaintiff also testified as to when he first thought his lung problems might be caused by the exposure to chemicals on his job, saying:
After still not obtaining any relief for his breathing difficulties, plaintiff began treatment with a pulmonary specialist, Dr. Joseph Lynch, in early November, 1980. After treatment with Dr. Lynch, plaintiff's condition was specifically diagnosed as alveolar proteinosis and plaintiff received proper treatment.
As noted above, plaintiff filed his complaint on August 31, 1983. Defendants moved for summary disposition, claiming that the statute of limitations had run. M.C.L. Secs. 600.5805(1), (9) and 600.5827; M.S.A. Secs. 27A.5805(1), (9) and 27A.5827. MCR 2.116(C)(7). The trial court denied defendants' motion stating:
The court also applied the so-called discovery rule in determining when the statute of limitations began to run.
The first issue in this case is when the statute of limitations begins to run as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mascarenas v. Union Carbide Corp.
..."discovery rule" measures the accrual date of latent occupational diseases in products liability cases. Stinnett v. Tool Chemical Co., 161 Mich.App. 467, 473, 411 N.W.2d 740 (1987), generalizing from Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 427 Mich. 301, 308, 399 N.W.2d 1 (1986) (exposure to ......
-
Moll v. Abbott Laboratories
...423, 381 N.W.2d 737 (1985); Furby v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 154 Mich.App. 339, 397 N.W.2d 303 (1986); Stinnett v. Tool Chemical Co., Inc., 161 Mich.App. 467, 411 N.W.2d 740 (1987). See also Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 427 Mich. 301, 399 N.W.2d 1 (1986), where the Supreme Court ......
-
Asher v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.
...of the injury and not at the time of exposure to the product or at the time of diagnosable injury. Stinnett v. Tool Chemical Co., Inc., 161 Mich.App. 467, 472-473, 411 N.W.2d 740 (1987), citing Larson. The Court in Stinnett, supra at 473, 411 N.W.2d 740, further held that the plaintiff's cl......
-
Kullman v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., OWENS-CORNING
...of limitations issues. Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 427 Mich. 301, 399 N.W.2d 1 (1987). In Stinnett v. Tool Chemical Company, Inc., 161 Mich.App. 467, 411 N.W.2d 740 (1987), the court, applying Larson, supra, held an action barred because the statute of limitations had begun to run......