Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves claims by a plaintiff diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma against asbestos manufacturers, focusing on issues of liability and damages. The plaintiff, who worked with asbestos between 1948 and 1952, filed suit in 1993 and settled with all defendants except Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Owens-Illinois Glass Company. The jury awarded damages to both the plaintiff and his spouse, but both parties sought a new trial on different grounds, which were denied, prompting cross-appeals. Central to the appeal was the admissibility of evidence regarding the state of the art defense and the requirement of privity for breach of warranty claims. The appellate court found merit in Owens's arguments concerning the exclusion of state of the art evidence, referencing the precedent set by Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., and reversed the trial court's judgment, granting Owens a new trial. The court upheld the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial on damages, finding the jury's award reasonable and within the trial judge's discretion. The case also addressed the apportionment of pretrial settlements and the preservation of jury instruction issues for appeal. Ultimately, the case was remanded for retrial primarily on the issue of liability.
Legal Issues Addressed
Apportionment of Pretrial Settlementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court deemed the judge's actions in apportioning the pretrial settlements among various claims as proper, allowing for a mutually agreeable allocation or resorting to a judge's determination if necessary.
Reasoning: G.L. c. 231B does not prohibit judges from apportioning pretrial settlements among various claims, particularly when the settlement included wrongful death claims not covered by the jury award.
Denial of Motion for a New Trial on Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial on damages, emphasizing the trial judge's discretion and the sufficiency of the jury's award.
Reasoning: The judgment concerning liability was reversed, but the order denying the new trial on damages was affirmed.
Duty to Warn under Implied Warranty of Merchantabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the precedent set in Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., which clarified that a defendant is not liable for failure to warn about risks that were not foreseeable at the time of sale, thereby entitling Owens to a new trial.
Reasoning: This ruling indicated that a defendant is not liable for failure to warn about risks that were not foreseeable at the time of sale. Consequently, under Vassallo, Owens was entitled to a new trial, leading to the reversal of the previous judgment.
Jury Instructions and Preservation for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the jury instructions given by the trial judge, noting that the plaintiffs failed to preserve certain issues for appeal by not objecting during trial.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs claimed the judge incorrectly instructed the jury about their pretrial settlement with other defendants. However, as the plaintiffs did not object to this instruction, the issue was not preserved for appeal.
Privity Requirement for Breach of Warranty Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the lack of privity did not bar the plaintiffs' claims because the injury occurred after the 1973 amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code, which eliminated the privity requirement for such claims.
Reasoning: Massachusetts law under the Uniform Sales Act required privity for breach of warranty claims at the time of Thayer's exposure, but this changed with the 1973 amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code that allowed such claims without privity for injuries occurring after that date.