3M Company v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01651-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01651-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 12-15-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 01-20-2005 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Products liability - Defective design - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Dickinson, J., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ., Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-30-2002 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: The jury denied the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. The trial court denied 3M’s post-trial motions including a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | 3M COMPANY f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
DONNA BROWN JACOBS
JOHN C. HENEGAN
W. WAYNE DRINKWATER, JR.
MARGARET OERTLING CUPPLES |
||
| Appellee: | SIMEON JOHNSON, JAMES CURRY, BOBBY JOE LAWRENCE AND PHILLIP PATE | SUZANNE GRIGGINS KEYS PRECIOUS TYRONE MARTIN ISAAC K. BYRD, JR. PATRICK C. MALOUF TIMOTHY W. PORTER |
|
|
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 - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Products liability - Defective design - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Over 150 plaintiffs, including James Curry, Bobby Joe Lawrence, Phillip Pate and Simeon Johnson filed an action against approximately 62 defendants, one of which was Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), a manufacturer of protective masks. The judge entered a Case Management Order which provided that the plaintiffs’ counsel were to designate ten plaintiffs among their initial group to be tried jointly against all defendants against whom those plaintiffs in the trial group alleged claims. The defendants moved for a separate trial for each plaintiff, but the court denied the motion. The jury returned six separate verdicts based on special interrogatories in favor of each plaintiff for $25 million in compensatory damages. The jury denied the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages. 3M appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Joinder The plaintiffs in this case were improperly joined, as the only similar trait shared by the plaintiffs is the alleged exposure to asbestos at some point in their work history. The plaintiffs worked in different occupations, for different employers, at different times, were exposed to different products and used different respiratory protection equipment or no respiratory protection equipment at all. Although the plaintiffs were of varying ages, had different work histories, different exposures and different diagnoses, the jury returned identical damage awards. Also, the plaintiffs sued multiple defendants based on multiple theories of causation. These defendants were required to defend themselves alongside unrelated defendants. From 3M’s perspective, it was the only defendant in the suit which did not manufacture or distribute a product containing asbestos. Therefore, not only were the plaintiffs’ claims lacking in a similar transaction or occurrence, but the defendants were improperly joined as well pursuant to M.R.C.P. 20(a). Also evident of improper joinder was the identical amounts of damages awarded to each plaintiff. This was a products liability case in regards to these four plaintiffs’ claims against 3M. Because these plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case showing the elements of a cause of action, this case is reversed and rendered as to these plaintiffs and their claims against 3M. As to the remaining plaintiffs not in the initial trial group, the judge shall sever and transfer the claims of those plaintiffs to an appropriate venue if those plaintiffs elect to proceed to trial. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence 3M argues that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof of showing that the 3M 8500 dust mask and the 3M 8710 respirator were defective when manufactured. In order to recover in a products liability action based on a design defect, the plaintiffs must prove that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller: the product was designed in a defective manner; the defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer; and the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiffs here were thus required to prove that at the time the 8500 dust mask and the 8710 disposable respirator left 3M’s control, there was a feasible alternative design available that would have prevented the harm without impairing the usefulness of the product. The 8500 dust mask was only approved for non-toxic nuisance dusts. 3M did not represent to consumers that the 8500 dust mask was appropriate for protection from asbestos. The 8710 disposable respirator was approved by the Bureau of Mines to be used in areas of known asbestos exposure. However, when OSHA reduced the permissible exposure limit for environments in which the respirators could be used, 3M voluntarily withdrew the 8710 as an approved respirator for use with asbestos. The plaintiffs’ expert offered no feasible design alternative to the 8710 disposable respirator which could have been used. The plaintiffs also offered no proof from which a reasonable jury could conclude that an injury was caused by a defect that existed at the time the mask was sold by 3M.ain There was no evidence presented that any plaintiff that any employer read or relied on any 3M advertisement, brochure, package or label. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that some other warning would have given them additional information that they did not already know and that they would have acted upon that new information in a manner that would have avoided the injuries. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any missing warning caused the injury. Given all this, 3M is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
