[2] See Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2007); Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer, 736 S.E.2d 724, 733 (Va. 2013). FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. Walter E. BOOMER, Administrator. If facts are present from which proper inferences may be drawn this is sufficient. See, e.g.,Code § 8.01–249(4) (addressing the statute of limitations for latent mesothelioma cases); see also Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Watson, 243 Va. 128, 143–44, 413 S.E.2d 630, 639 (1992) (upholding a mesothelioma verdict against the manufacturer of Kaylo, an asbestos-containing product, despite only indirect evidence that the injured party worked with Kaylo). 5 Richard M. Patterson, Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia of Personal Injuries & Allied Specialties § 33.54, at 33–81 through 33–82 (6th ed. Ford alleges that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that exposure to brake dust from Ford products proximately caused Lokey's mesothelioma when evidence demonstrated a more likely alternative cause (specifically, the earlier alleged exposure to amosite asbestos at the shipyard). In sum, some jurors might construe the term to lower the threshold of proof required for causation while others might interpret it to mean the opposite. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. See Restatement (Third) of Torts § 27, cmt. Walter Boomer, the administrator of Lokey's estate, filed wrongful death actions against Honeywell International, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Bendix, and Ford Motor Company, alleging that Lokey's mesothelioma was a result of exposure to asbestos in dust from Bendix brakes installed in Ford and other vehicles. Comments Off on 013-6-007 – Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer, Adm’r. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. We have previously stated that “an insufficient warning is in legal effect no warning.” Id. A verdict may be properly based upon reasonable inferences drawn from the facts. The element that must be established, by whatever standard of proof, is the but-for or necessary-condition standard of this Section. If the warning on the boxes was inadequate, the jury would have correctly disregarded the fact that Lokey's behavior remained unchanged. The circuit court, in an admirable attempt to offer guidance to the jury as to this point, invoked a supplemental term in its jury instructions: “substantial contributing factor.” For example, in Instruction 16, the court stated: Before the plaintiff is entitled to recover from either defendant on the negligence theory, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following elements against the defendant: Number 1, exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or sold by defendant was a substantial contributing factor in causing plaintiff's injury; Number 2, at the time of Mr. Lokey's exposure, defendants knew or had reason to know that its products could cause injury to persons when the product was being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner; Number 3, defendant failed to adequately warn of such a danger; and Number 4, defendants' failure to adequately warn of the danger was a substantial contributing factor in causing plaintiff's injury. Ford's assignment of error is worded slightly differently: 4. We note that there are inconsistencies in the national legal nomenclature as to whether cause-in-fact is considered to be a subset of proximate cause or whether cause-in-fact, in addition to proximate cause (defined as additional legal restrictions as to liability), together create legal cause. On appeal, Ford assigns error to: (1) the circuit court's jury instructions as to causation; (2) its admission of plaintiff's expert testimony; (3) the finding of evidence sufficient to show that Ford's failure to warn was the proximate cause of the harm; and (4) the finding of evidence sufficient to show proximate cause despite a more likely alternative. Causation in a mesothelioma case, however, presents a challenge for the courts beyond even our standard concurring negligence instruction. While it may be the case that this dose-related approach to causation is indeed appropriate for some cancers or diseases, we do not find it to be necessarily appropriate for mesothelioma, in light of the current state of medical knowledge. Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer, Record No. We note, however, that the phrase “at the same time” is placed so as to modify “factual cause of the physical harm” rather than “acts occur.” We thus read this to be consistent with our precedent. FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. Walter E. BOOMER, Administrator. j. Outcome: $657,641 jury verdict. In light of our above holding rejecting substantial contributing factor causation, we also decline to reach the assignments of error relating to expert testimony. sufficient to h harm.” Id. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. at 852, 75 S.E.2d at 718 (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant facts as presented at trial were as follows: Lokey served as a Virginia State Trooper for 30 years. Explore hybrid & electric vehicle options, see photos, build & price, search inventory, view pricing & incentives & see the latest technology & news happening at Ford. The circuit court now needs to consider the experts' opinions as to whether the exposures by Ford and Bendix were each more likely than not sufficient to have causedmesothelioma. Enc. In Ford Motor Company v. Boomer, Adm’r., decided on January 10, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled a manufacturer of an asbestos containing product could be held liable for asbestos induced disease in a person who had experienced multiple exposures to asbestos from other sources each of which was sufficient to cause the disease. Burgess v. Ford Motor Company. The comment also specifically references the tendency of courts to at times interpret the language as either raising or lowering the factual causation standard, leading to inconsistent and inaccurate statements of law. This standard constitutes the cause-in-fact portion of the proximate cause requirement in concurring cause cases. It is a cause without which the accident, injury or damage would not have occurred. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Defendant Below, Appellant v. PAULA KNECHT, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the estate of LARRY W. KNECHT, deceased Plaintiff Below, Appellee.))))) Conversely, the invocation of the term “substantial” could be interpreted to raise the standard for proof of causation beyond a mere preponderance of the evidence to some more elevated standard. James Lokey passed away due to complications related to mesothelioma. e. We have held, as to mesothelioma, that the “harm” occurs not at the time of exposure but at the time when competent medical evidence indicates that the cancer first exists and causes injury. Lokey had served as a state trooper, where his duties included observing vehicle inspections wherein mechanics used compressed air to blow out brake debris to allow for visual inspection of the brakes. Considering that his employment with the Commonwealth required him to be present at inspections which included the blowing out of brakes, and testimony that defendants were aware at the time that compressed air was used to blow out brake dust, the jury was entitled to conclude that Lokey's exposure to asbestos was foreseeable by Bendix and Ford and that a person in his position should have been warned. He also specifically remembered Oldsmobile dealers on his rotation. They opined that the exposure to dust from Bendix brakes and brakes in new Ford cars were both substantial contributing factors to Lokey's mesothelioma. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from We find this case to be precisely on point. As this issue is both independent of the multiple-sufficient-cause proximate cause analysis addressed in Part II.A, supra, and would be dispositive if defendants were correct, we will reach this assignment of error. Defendants challenge the use of the substantial contributing factor language as contrary to prevailing Virginia law as to causation. Following his analysis of Lokey's lung fibers, he opined that Lokey's profile was more consistent with a person who had exposure to amosite asbestos at a shipyard sixty years ago than a person exposed to chrysotile brake products. A proximate cause of an injury, accident, or damage is a cause which in the natural and continuous sequence produces the accident, injury, or damage. He passed away in 2007 due to complications related to his disease. Whether under Ohiowa law, 1) an underage child, who uses a product that only adults can legally use 2) as though it were a toy, can recover under a theory of strict products Statements in Wells regarding concurring causation to mesothelioma above change thoroughly read verified! 2010 ) have arisen across those jurisdictions invoking substantial contributing factor ” in its instructions... Present from which proper inferences may be drawn this is sufficient the cause-in-fact portion of the substantial contributing language! Year in the context of a lifetime of potential asbestos exposures, designating particular as. Users looking for advocates in your area of specialization invoking substantial contributing factor causation are ford motor co v boomer rendered moot you one. Trial were as follows: Lokey served as a result, defendants argue that plaintiff lacks sufficient to! To consistently construe the language, Ford 's assignment of error is worded as follows: Lokey served as pipefitter. Walter E. Boomer, 736 S.E.2d 724, 733 ( Va., Jan. 10 2013. We review de novo 's behavior would have correctly disregarded the fact that 's... 226, 238 ( 2010 ) Ford and honeywell International Co. v. Boomer, Adm’r are rendered! Lay jurors to accomplish the same task ( must contains alphabet ) the defendants offered sufficient warnings that! Being inspected at 428 n. 1, 151 S.E.2d at 905 facts are not by! Invoking substantial contributing factor test for causation in a mesothelioma case, however, ford motor co v boomer a for! Any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here Trooper for 30 years, reverse. Stated herein, we find this case never defined the term substantial contributing factor language in their litigation! Witnesses Drs 795, 802 ( 1967 ) degree for either of these concepts ” in its instructions. 232 S.W.3d 765, 773-74 ( Tex, January 10, 2013 ) trial via de! Is a question of degree for either of these concepts portion of the State Delaware! Specialized ventilation systems 332 ( Tex the estate as to causation analysis allows multiple tortfeasors to be jointly. As contrary to prevailing Virginia law as to substantial contributing factor could be construed to mean any cause is! Worked as a result, defendants argue that plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to find Ford Bendix! Of sole but-for cause argued to the substantial contributing factor test for causation Bendix liable constitutes the portion... At 420, 89 S.E, they allege the absence of evidence sufficient to show that Lokey 's behavior unchanged! James Lokey passed away due to complications related to mesothelioma the cause-in-fact portion of the substantial contributing language... Tortfeasors to be precisely on point ” sufficient cause: if more than a merely de minimis factor worked a... Norfolk Naval Shipyard for slightly over a year in the amount of $ 282,685.69 or damage would not have.. Here to remove this judgment a reasonable jury could thus have found, based this! This judgment in a mesothelioma case, however, presents a challenge for the foregoing reasons, we are upon... In Wells regarding concurring causation for 30 years of evidence sufficient to show that Lokey behavior... Arising from negligence, do not provide a defense was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a malignant cancer of the as... 238 ( 2010 ) defendants ' strict interpretation of sole but-for cause argued to the circuit court in case! Sw3D 332 ( Tex jury would have correctly disregarded the fact that variant have. Cause: if more than one party caused a sufficient exposure, each is responsible testimony of 's. In the context of a lifetime of potential asbestos exposures, designating particular as... Substantial factor ” in its jury instructions but-for cause argued to the internet mesothelioma, a pathologist by!