Gorman-Rupp Co. v. Hall, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-IA-01021-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-11-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Unauthenticated documents - M.R.E. 901 - M.R.C.P. 56(c) - Causation - “Frequency, regularity, proximity” standard in asbestos litigation Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2004 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: The Gorman-Rupp Company (Gorman) filed the petition for interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment and its subsequent motion for reconsideration of the motion for summary judgment. Case Number: 02-KV-0187-J |
|
| Note: | Motion for Expedited Oral Argument and Consideration Pursuant to Amended M.R.A.P. Rule 5(e) filed by counsel for the appellant is denied as moot. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gorman-Rupp Company |
JENNIFER MARIE STUDEBAKER,
THOMAS W. TARDY, III, T. HUNT COLE, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Bobby G. Hall, et al. | STACEY L. SIMS, ANTHONY SAKALARIOS, ALISON ANN DARSEY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Unauthenticated documents - M.R.E. 901 - M.R.C.P. 56(c) - Causation - “Frequency, regularity, proximity” standard in asbestos litigation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Seven plaintiffs filed suit against two hundred and seventy-four companies and corporate defendants as well as John Does 1-100 (all unidentified manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and installers of asbestos-containing products) and 101-200 (all unidentified associations and organizations which conspired with the manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and installers of asbestos-containing products). They alleged personal injuries related from exposure to asbestos products. Gorman, a pump manufacturer, was one of the named defendants. Gorman filed its motion for summary judgment as to all seven plaintiff’s claims. The court granted it in part finding no evidence of conspiracy as to Gorman but denied the remainder of the motion. The claims of each plaintiff was severed by the trial court, and Bobby Hall’s claim was set for trial. Gorman filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial as to Hall which was denied by the trial court. Gorman sought permission for interlocutory appeal which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Unauthenticated documents Gorman argues that the court relied on unauthenticated documents in deciding the summary judgment. Gorman argues that M.R.E. 901 has not been satisfied and that Hall has not complied with the requirements of M.R.C.P. 56 (c) by submitting 70,000 unauthenticated documents, including a letter from J. H. Wright and Associates that references International Paper’s recent purchase order of a Gorman pump, and no affidavit to support the documents. Although under M.R.E. 901 and M.R.C.P. 56(c) the unauthenticated documents should not have been considered, the trial court’s order does not specifically reference the documents in question. Issue 2: Causation Gorman asks the Court to adopt the “frequency, regularity, proximity” standard in Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986), in the context of summary judgment for asbestos cases. In Lohrmann, the district court found that “the plaintiff had not proved a reasonable probability of causation between the plaintiff’s disease and the products manufactured by Raymark, Celotex, and Pittsburgh Corning.” The circuit court concluded that the district court was correct in its ruling and the “use of the ‘frequency, regularity and proximity test’ was appropriate in determining whether the inferences raised by the testimony were within the range of reasonable probability so as to connect a defendant’s product to the plaintiff’s disease process.” Under that test, the requirements are exposure to a particular product; on a regular basis; over an extended period of time; and in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked. The “frequency, regularity, and proximity” test is the correct test to be applied in asbestos litigation. Based on the record, Hall falls short of meeting this test. Hall failed to submit any evidence that demonstrated that he had any exposure to an asbestos-containing product attributable to Gorman. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Gorman is appropriate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
