Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. 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.
Abbott v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
Citations: 905 F.2d 201; 1990 WL 72970Docket: No. 89-2096
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; June 4, 1990; Federal Appellate Court
The lawsuit initiated by Edwin Abbott's wife and children claimed wrongful death due to lung cancer attributed to his occupational exposure to asbestos while working as an insulator. The Celotex Corporation was one of several defendants alleged to have provided asbestos products used by Abbott. After reaching settlements with other defendants, the case proceeded to trial against Celotex, which resulted in a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $1,532,000. This amount was later reduced by $286,500 to account for prior settlements. Celotex appealed, arguing that a directed verdict should have been granted in its favor and contesting the hypothetical question posed to the plaintiffs' expert witness. The court affirmed the trial's outcome, noting that the evidence viewed favorably for the plaintiffs showed Abbott's significant exposure to asbestos products, including those from Celotex's predecessor, Philip Carey Company. The trial was bifurcated into phases addressing causation and compensatory damages, followed by liability and punitive damages. Celotex chose not to contest liability after the jury's initial verdict. The appellate court evaluated whether the evidence could only support a conclusion favoring Celotex, ultimately determining that it did not, as the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a factual question for the jury regarding the causation of Abbott's death. The expert witness, Dr. Tuteur, opined that Abbott's exposure to Carey asbestos products contributed to his lung cancer, supporting the jury's findings. Celotex's appeal for a directed verdict is based on two main arguments: first, that there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Abbott was exposed to Carey products for ten years, and second, that Dr. Tuteur's testimony only established a contributing cause, not a substantial cause of Mr. Abbott’s death. The court finds these arguments unpersuasive. Evidence indicated varying durations of exposure, including some suggesting ten years, which supports the hypothetical question posed to Dr. Tuteur. The presence of conflicting evidence does not negate the validity of the hypothetical, as factual disputes are resolved by the jury, not on appeal. Regarding Dr. Tuteur's opinion, although he described the products as a contributing factor, the court acknowledges that under Missouri law, a contributing factor must substantially contribute to liability. There remains a possibility for reasonable interpretation that Carey products could be seen as substantially contributing to Mr. Abbott's death. This is a matter for the jury to decide, rather than the appellate court. Celotex did not challenge the jury instructions, and the claim that Dr. Tuteur's wording necessitated a directed verdict is rejected. Additionally, the magistrate's decision to admit a shortened videotaped deposition of Mr. Abbott prior to his death is upheld, with the court concluding that Celotex's objections lack merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and the case is deemed appropriately resolved by the jury.