You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Held v. Avondale Industries, Inc.

Citations: 672 So. 2d 1106; 95 La.App. 4 Cir. 1788; 1996 La. App. LEXIS 600; 1996 WL 157392Docket: 95-CA-1788

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 2, 1996; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
In the case of Mavis Shubert HELD, et al. v. AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC., plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment that dismissed their claims against Avondale Industries. The plaintiffs alleged that the deceased, who died of mesothelioma, was exposed to asbestos while working as a marine surveyor at Avondale. Following his death in 1992, his wife and children continued the lawsuit, which was not contested on appeal.

The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, applying the same criteria as the trial court. A summary judgment is appropriate when evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Evidence must be construed in favor of the opposing party. The burden rests on the moving party to demonstrate with clarity that no material facts are in dispute, and the opposing party’s evidence is to be viewed indulgently. 

Key principles established include that a summary judgment should not be granted based on doubts about the opposing party's chances of success at trial, nor should the trial court weigh conflicting evidence or assess the merits of the case during summary judgment proceedings. Testimony should not be considered in deciding a motion for summary judgment. The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary judgment evaluations should not involve credibility assessments, as established in Hemphill v. Strain, and summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial on the merits (Dixie Buick, Inc. v. Lockett). Argument and briefs alone cannot create genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment can be granted when disputed facts do not present legal issues (Davenport v. Amax Nickel, Inc.).

The trial court erred by denying plaintiffs their state remedies under Louisiana law, incorrectly ruling that maritime law barred these claims. Mavis Held, a marine surveyor, was not a seaman, and his involvement in maritime activities does not eliminate his right to state remedies, including a jury trial and strict liability claims under Louisiana Civil Code article 2317.

Avondale's motion for summary judgment raised the issues of causation and the existence of genuine material facts, despite plaintiffs' claim to the contrary. The trial court found insufficient evidence linking asbestos exposure at Avondale to plaintiffs' pleural mesothelioma. However, plaintiffs presented expert testimony from Dr. Victor Roggli, who stated that any exposure to asbestos could significantly contribute to mesothelioma. Avondale did not provide counter-evidence to challenge this claim.

Given that genuine issues of material fact regarding causation exist, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The dismissal of Bethlehem Steel Corporation from the case was noted as a voluntary dismissal.