Shirley A. Johnson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington grants Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, denies Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and grants in part and denies in part motions to exclude expert testimony. The asbestos-exposure negligence action involves alleged exposure during shipyard work and addresses federal jurisdiction, admiralty jurisdiction, the government contractor defense, and the admissibility of expert opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Holdings

1. The court had admiralty jurisdiction because the alleged exposure occurred, at least in part, aboard vessels in navigable waters and the ship-repair activities had a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity and the potential to disrupt maritime commerce.
2. Expert testimony that assumes Stubblefield encountered asbestos at particular shipyards, without evidence identifying asbestos-containing materials disturbed in his presence or a reliable methodology connecting general industry conditions to his work, is inadmissible under Rule 702 and, in some respects, Rule 403.
3. An expert may testify generally that asbestos exposure contributes to cumulative dose and that the threshold for mesothelioma is unknown, but may not use an every-exposure or cumulative-exposure theory to conclude that each unquantified exposure was necessarily a substantial contributing factor in causing the disease.
4. Plaintiff could not defeat summary judgment because she offered no admissible evidence that Stubblefield was exposed to asbestos attributable to either shipyard or that any such exposure was a substantial contributing factor in causing his mesothelioma.
5. The court did not adjudicate a strict-products-liability claim because Johnson clarified that she was proceeding on a premises-negligence theory; maritime strict products liability would not apply merely because the vessels were products.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on federal-officer removal and admiralty jurisdiction.
2. Whether portions of plaintiff's industrial-hygiene and medical expert opinions were admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403.
3. Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that Stubblefield was exposed to asbestos attributable to Todd or Lockheed.
4. Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that any asbestos exposure attributable to Todd or Lockheed was a substantial contributing factor in causing mesothelioma.
5. Whether plaintiff alleged or could pursue a strict-products-liability claim under maritime law.

Disposition

other