The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Florida Supreme Court Lowers Burden for Products Liability Plaintiffs

Posted on November 16, 2015 by Eleanor Smith

Asbestos

The Supreme Court of Florida reinstated a $6.6 million jury verdict for a man who contracted mesothelioma from working with asbestos materials mined by Union Carbide Corp. The 5-2 reinstatement decision lessens the burden of proof for products liability plaintiffs like William Aubin, the Florida man who suffered the asbestos-related side effects.

Clear Causation

Aubin was exposed to the asbestos materials contained in a product called SG-210 Calidria. Aubin used this Georgia-Specific texture spray made of joint compounds while working as a home builder in the 1970s. Union Carbide was aware that using joint compounds and texture sprays would create respirable dust . . . and could ultimately cause both asbestosis and mesothelioma.

At trial, Aubin presented expert testimony that concluded exposure to respirable Calidria fibers causes mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a tissue tumor that lines the lungs, stomach, heart, and other organs. Aubin’s expert testimony and evidence of Union Carbide’s knowledge was sufficient to permit the jury to make a causation determination.

On the district level, Union Carbide argued that Aubin, as the plaintiff, should bear the burden of proving a better, alternative design for the spray. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, stating:

“There is absolutely no requirement . . . nor has this Court ever adopted a requirement as set forth in the Third Restatement, that the plaintiff must either present proof of a reasonable alternative design or establish that the product was manifestly unreasonable before the requirement of proof of an alternative design could be excused. The parties may, in proving or defending against such claims, present evidence that a reasonable alternative design existed and argue whether the benefit of the product’s design outweighed any risks of injury or death caused by the design.”

See Also: Jury Awards $11 Million in Asbestos Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara J. Pariente reasoned that the Third District’s decision was directly in conflict the state Supreme Court and several other district courts of appeal. The Florida high court even warned that the jury instruction presented at trial was so misleading it warranted a reversal.

The Best Test

The District Court improperly applied the risk utility test in direct conflict with the Florida Supreme Court’s consumer expectation test. By requiring a plaintiff to prove that a manufacturer should have foreseen a product’s risks, the Court held:

“[T]he risk utility test imposes a higher burden on consumers to prove a design defect than exists in negligence cases — the antithesis of adopting strict products liability in the first place. Increasing the burden for injured consumers to prove their strict liability claims for unreasonably dangerous products that were placed into the stream of commerce is contrary to the policy reasons behind the adoption of strict liability [claims] in the West.”

The majority ultimately concluded that the verdict reinstatement was sufficient and a new trial was not warranted, but Justice Ricky Polston (dissenting) and Justice Charles Canady (concurring) disagreed on this point. Union Carbide requested a jury instruction on the learned intermediary defense, and Justices Polston and Canady believed the facts at trial were sufficient to warrant the defense.

The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion has potentially far-reaching effects because the Court did not limit its rulings to Aubin’s case only. The potential impact of the ruling drew amicus briefs from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Florida Consumer Action Network and the Florida Justice Association, to name a few.

The case is William P. Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. SC12-2075 (October 29, 2015) decided by Pariente, J. in the Supreme Court of Florida.

Posted in Blog, Consumer Protection, Product Liability

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Santa Fe Agrees To a $36M Settlement With the Firms Responsible For Constructing Its Water Project

Santa Fe Agrees To a $36M Settlement With the Firms Responsible For Constructing Its Water Project

The board of the Santa Fe city and county’s joint Buckman Direct Diversion agreed to a $36 million settlement last wee[Read More...]
Health Net Repaid $97.2M To Settle an Investigation Confirming It Over-Billed the U.S. For Veterans Care

Health Net Repaid $97.2M To Settle an Investigation Confirming It Over-Billed the U.S. For Veterans Care

A Rancho Cordova health insurance company has repaid $97.2 million to settle an investigation into inflated claims submitted [Read More...]
Sessions at the 2021 Trial Lawyers Summit

Sessions at the 2021 Trial Lawyers Summit

On May 4 - 7, 2021, The National Trial Lawyers will present the 10th annual Trial Lawyers Summit, hosted at the Loews Mi[Read More...]
The U.S. Settles the 1800s Land Grabs With the Pembina Band of Chippewas for $59M

The U.S. Settles the 1800s Land Grabs With the Pembina Band of Chippewas for $59M

FARGO — A delegation that negotiated a treaty to obtain a large swath of the Red River Valley from the Ojibwe showed u[Read More...]
A Settlement With the Department of Agriculture Will Bring $715M in Food Stamps To Pennsylvania Households

A Settlement With the Department of Agriculture Will Bring $715M in Food Stamps To Pennsylvania Households

(Pittsburgh) — A legal settlement between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and two Pennsylvania women who are food st[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.