Theer v. Philip Carey Co.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1993 |
| Citation | 628 A.2d 724,133 N.J. 610 |
| Parties | , 62 USLW 2132, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,721 Rose Marie THEER, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Joseph R. Theer, deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PHILIP CAREY CO.; Philip Carey Manufacturing Co.; Smith and Kanzler, Co.; Celotex, Inc., individually and as successor to Philip Carey Co., Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. and Smith and Kanzler Co.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; Eagle Picher Industries, Inc.; Pabco, Inc.; The Ruberoid Company; Manville Corporation; Johns-Manville Corporation; Johns-Manville Products Corporation; Johns-Manville Sales Corporation; Ehret Magnesia Manufacturing Co.; Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc.; Keasbey & Mattison Co.; Nicolet Industries, Inc., individually and as successor to Keasbey & Mattison, Co.; Turner & Newall, P.L.C., as alter ego of Keasbey & Mattison Co.; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation; Unarco Industries, Inc.; Armstrong World Industries, Inc., formerly known as Armstrong Cork Co.; Empire Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation and John Doe 1 Through John Doe 50, Defendants, and Fibreboard Corp., individually and as successor to Pabco, Inc.; GAF Corporation, individually and as successor to The Ruberoid Company; Keene Corporation, individually and as successor to Ehret Magnesia Manufacturing Co. and Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, individually and as successor to Unarco Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Rose Marie THEER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PHILIP CAREY CO.; Philip Carey Manufacturing Co.; Smith and Kanzler, Co.; Celotex, Inc., individually and as successor to Philip Carey Co., Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. and Smith and Kanzler Co.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; Eagle Picher Industries, Inc.; Pabco, Inc.; The Ruberoid Company; Manville Corporation; Johns-Manville Corporation; Johns-Manville Products Corporation; Johns-Manville Sales Corporation; Ehret Magnesia Manufacturing Co.; Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc.; Keasbey & Mattison Co.; Nicolet Industries, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Gita F. Rothschild, Newark, for defendants-appellants Fibreboard Corp., individually and as successor to Pabco, Inc.; Keene Corporation, individually and as successor to Ehret Magnesia Mfg. Co. and Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Pittsburgh Corning Corp., individually and as successor to Unarco Industries, Inc. (McCarter & English, attys.; Andrew T. Berry, of counsel; Mr. Berry and Charles F. Rysavy, on the briefs).
Karl Asch, for plaintiff-respondent (Mr. Asch, attorney; Mr. Asch and David R. Goldberg, on the brief).
Edward J. Wilbraham submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of defendant-appellant GAF Corp., individually and as successor to The Ruberoid Co.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
In this case, an asbestos fitter was exposed over a long period to asbestos in the workplace. He died from lung cancer allegedly caused in part from asbestos-related injuries resulting from his exposure to this hazardous substance. Decedent's surviving wife was indirectly exposed to asbestos in the course of handling decedent's work clothes and, as a result, is allegedly at risk of contracting asbestos-related disease. In a strict-product-liability action brought by the surviving wife individually and on behalf of decedent, plaintiff asserted that defendants were liable because of their failure to provide adequate warnings of the dangers from exposure to asbestos.
In the companion case, Coffman v. Keene, 133 N.J. 581, 628 A.2d 710 (1993), decided today, we held that a plaintiff in a failure-to-warn product-liability case is entitled to a presumption that had a warning been given, it would have been heeded; that such a presumption is rebuttable by evidence sufficient to demonstrate that had a warning been provided, it would have been disregarded by the plaintiff; and that if the presumption is not rebutted, the failure to warn is presumed to be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
In this case, we are similarly asked to determine the applicability of a heeding presumption in a failure-to-warn product-liability case. Further, we are asked to consider specifically whether the evidence relating to decedent's conduct was sufficient to overcome the heeding presumption. That inquiry, in turn, raises the issue, directly presented in this case, but also considered and resolved in Coffman, of whether the fact that the unsafe product was used in the workplace and the resultant injury was work-related is material in defining and applying the heeding presumption.
This appeal also presents two other issues. One is whether, in the asbestos context, a plaintiff, in the absence of any manifest asbestos-related condition, can recover as compensatory damages the cost of future medical surveillance to monitor his or her health necessitated by the indirect exposure to asbestos. A final issue relates to the admissibility of an expert's opinion with respect to medical causation that was contained in an autopsy report that was otherwise admissible in evidence as a business record.
Joseph Theer died of lung cancer after a lifetime spent as an asbestos worker. His wife, Rose Marie Theer, the plaintiff in this case, brought an action in strict product liability on behalf of decedent and individually against various asbestos manufacturers that had supplied the products with which decedent had worked. She contends that her husband's injuries, as well as several of her own ailments, were caused by exposure to defendants' products. At present, only two defendants, Philip Carey Co. and GAF Corporation, remain in this action.
Decedent was first exposed to the product when he interned as an asbestos mixer at a General Motors Plant in 1942 at age fourteen. He recommenced full-time work as an asbestos insulator after his discharge from the army in 1947. He worked with asbestos for almost twenty-nine years. During his work, decedent never wore a mask or any other protective gear. Despite the fact that two manufacturers had supplied warnings in 1964 and 1968, decedent never saw any warning labels on the products he used. However, in a deposition taken prior to his death, decedent acknowledged that he had seen an article in a union magazine in the mid-1970s that discussed asbestosis.
In 1976, decedent retired in ill health. He was diagnosed as having pulmonary asbestosis and asbestosis-related pulmonary disease. At that time, he quit his thirty-year, one-and-a-half pack-a-day smoking habit. In 1984, decedent contracted lung cancer. After unsuccessful surgery, the cancer spread to his scalp and brain. He died of lung cancer in 1986. At trial, the issue of medical causation was sharply contested. The experts for plaintiff testified that there was a synergistic interaction between exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoking. They expressed the opinion that decedent's exposure to asbestos was a substantial factor in the causation of his lung cancer.
Plaintiff, decedent's wife, had also come into contact with asbestos dust through years of washing her husband's clothing. In 1970, at age thirty-eight, Mrs. Theer underwent heart surgery to repair a mitral valve. In 1981, doctors treated her for right lung pneumonia. Finally, in 1985, plaintiff had surgery to remove a rounded atelectasis from her right lung. Mrs. Theer stated that her health problems stemmed from her exposure to asbestos. However, she had also smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for thirty-six years. Experts testified that Mrs. Theer's exposure to asbestos dust on her husband's clothes had caused the mass in her lung and had increased her risk of developing lung cancer. Because of the increased risk of cancer, her doctors recommended life-long medical surveillance. Defendants' experts disagreed and alleged that the mass was due to pleural thickening from her bout with pneumonia.
The jury concluded, by answering a special interrogatory, that decedent had not proven that the lack of warning was the proximate cause of decedent's asbestos-related injuries. The court consequently entered a verdict of no cause of action. With regard to Mrs. Theer's injuries, the jury found that she did not have an asbestos-related injury. Accordingly, the court did not allow the jury to reach her claim for damages for emotional suffering and costs of medical surveillance based on the increased risk of cancer.
The Appellate Division reversed and remanded in part. 259 N.J.Super. 40, 611 A.2d 148 (1992). With respect to proof of causation, the parties raised the issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to a heeding presumption, but the court declined to rule on whether the presumption should be applied. The court, nevertheless, determined that the jury, as reflected in its answer to a special interrogatory, had found that defendants' warnings were inadequate and that those inadequate warnings had contributed substantially to decedent's cancer. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that plaintiff had met her burden of proof with respect to whether the lack of a warning had caused decedent's injuries....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chems., Inc.
...to both the employee and the employer. See Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581, 606-08, 628 A.2d 710 (1993) ; Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 133 N.J. 610, 620-21, 628 A.2d 724 (1993) (discussing Coffman, its companion case). That approach enhances workplace safety by giving workers the means t......
-
James v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
...concerning a product, if such a warning had been given by a manufacturer. Id. at 608, 628 A.2d 710; see also Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 133 N.J. 610, 622, 628 A.2d 724 (1993). In order to prove a supervening cause to overcome the heeding presumption, the manufacturer must show that had an a......
-
Zaza v. Marquess and Nell, Inc.
...a prima facia case on the proximate cause issue. Coffman, supra, 133 N.J. at 599-603, 609, 628 A.2d 710; Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 133 N.J. 610, 622, 628 A.2d 724 (1993). It serves to "shift plaintiff's burden of proof on the issue of causation as it relates to the absence of a warning." C......
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright
...the defendant's tortious conduct) and a significantly increased risk of contracting a latent disease. For example, in Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 628 A.2d 724 (N.J. 1993), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that recovery for medical monitoring may be obtained only by plaintiffs who have "expe......
-
Medical Monitoring – 50-State Survey
...in an increased risk of future injury arising from the exposure to toxic chemicals. It is not easily invoked.” Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 628 A.2d 724, 733 (N.J. 1993). To recover, a plaintiff must (a) have been “directly exposed” to a hazardous substance with a “risk . . . attributable to ......
-
CHAPTER 9 SPECIAL TOPICS IN TOXIC TORTS: CLASSES, DAMAGES AND FORMS OF RELIEF
...Oil, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 530, 537 (S.D.W. Va. 1993) (predicting Kentucky law on medical monitoring claim). [58] Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 133 N.J. 610, 628 A.2d 724, 733 (1993). [59] Theer, 628 A.2d at 733. [60] Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Department of Army of U.S., 835 F. Supp. 803, 810-......
-
American Law Institute Proposes Controversial Medical Monitoring Rule in Final Part of Torts Restatement.
...surveillance to monitor the effect of exposure to toxic chemicals is reasonable and necessary"), limited by Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 628 A.2d 724, 733 (N.J. 1993) (limiting Ayers to cases where "plaintiffs who have suffered increased risk of cancer when directly exposed to a defective or ......
-
Medical monitoring: pay me now or pay me later.
...from a nearby landfill. Ayers v. Jackson Township, 525 A.2d 287 (N.J. 1987). However, six years later in Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 628 A.2d 724, 733 (N.J. 1993), the same court held that "medical surveillance damages are not available for plaintiffs who have not experienced direct and henc......