Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01128-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01128-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-12-2008 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Admission of expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): RANDOLPH, J. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, P.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ. Procedural History: JNOV; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-09-2006 Appealed from: SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: This case comes before the Court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Smith County. Following a trial in which the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Circuit Judge Robert G. Evans granted the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) after finding that the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert on the issue of causation should have been excluded as scientifically unreliable. The trial court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff’s case with prejudice, and the plaintiff appeals. Case Number: 2002-364 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MILTON CECIL WATTS |
EUGENE COURSEY TULLOS,
LOUIS H. WATSON, JR.,
DARYL L. MOORE,
LANCE H. LUBEL,
J. ROBERT BLACK |
|
|
| Appellee: | RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY AND UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION | S. LEANNA BANKESTER, JOE E. BASENBERG, GEORGE M. WALKER, RANCE N. ULMER, JAMES M. RILEY, JR., STEPHEN L. THOMAS, MARY CLAY W. MORGAN, FRED KRUTZ, PHILLIP S. SYKES, JAMES WILLIAM MANUEL | ||
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 - Admission of expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Milton C. Watts was diagnosed with small-cell lymphocytic lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1999. Beginning in 1947, and throughout much of his career, Watts used a product called Liquid Wrench which was manufactured by Radiator Specialty Company. Liquid Wrench was made with a solvent called raffinate which contained benzene. The benzene-containing raffinate used by Radiator Specialty to manufacture Liquid Wrench was produced by U.S. Steel Corporation. Watts filed his complaint against Radiator Specialty and U.S. Steel, arguing that his lymphoma was caused by his exposure to the benzene-containing raffinate in Liquid Wrench. The defendants moved for summary judgment which the court denied. The jury returned a verdict for Watts in the amount of $2 million. The defendants made a motion for JNOV (or, in the alternative, a new trial). The court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion for JNOV and conditionally granting the defendants a new trial should the Supreme Court reverse the grant of JNOV. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice, and Watts appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The defendants argued that the trial court had erred in admitting the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert as to causation. The trial court agreed that the expert’s causation testimony was scientifically unreliable. Under M.R.E. 702, a trial court must apply a two-pronged inquiry when evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: is the witness qualified, and is the testimony relevant and reliable? In this case, there is no dispute that the expert was properly qualified as an expert in epidemiology and occupational medicine. The expert testified as to general causation (that benzene causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) and specific causation (that benzene-containing Liquid Wrench caused Mr. Watts’ non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma). The methodology used in forming his opinion as to general causation was the review of eighteen case studies done by different researchers between 1979 and 2004. The defendants challenge the reliability and relevance of the case studies Dr. Levy relied upon. While case-study review is certainly an accepted methodology, trial courts still must be certain that the content of those case studies is relevant to the facts at hand. A review of the case studies supports the trial court’s finding that the expert’s testimony as to the content of the studies and their relevance to the facts of this case could easily have misled the jury. Of the eighteen studies the expert cited, he testified that only half showed a statistically significant increase in risk due to benzene exposure. None of the studies specifically looked at the possible risks associated with use of Liquid Wrench. None specifically studied the risks of development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in mechanics, Watts’ profession. Not one study concluded that there is a causal link between benzene exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Relevance depends upon whether the reasoning or methodology employed by the expert witness may be properly applied to the facts at hand. The expert’s testimony gave very little detail, if any, as to the specific findings of each case study and glossed over many of the findings. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert’s testimony. As the expert’s testimony was the only evidence Watts presented as to causation, the trial court’s grant of JNOV was proper. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
