Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Minton

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia reviews a jury verdict against Exxon Mobil Corporation under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The court addresses vessel-owner duties of active control and intervention, proximate causation for asbestos-related mesothelioma, the exclusion of evidence concerning the shipyard's knowledge and safety measures, and punitive damages. The court reverses and remands the case.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Exxon substantially controlled or was in charge of specific repair activities and the asbestos hazard on its vessels, thereby establishing and supporting breach of the active-control duty under Scindia.
2. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Exxon had actual knowledge of the asbestos hazard and of the Shipyard's failure to protect workers, such that Exxon had a duty to intervene and failed to do so.
3. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Minton's asbestos exposure aboard Exxon's vessels was a substantial contributing factor in causing his mesothelioma, even though other asbestos exposure could also have been sufficient to cause the disease.
4. The circuit court erred by excluding evidence concerning the Shipyard's knowledge of asbestos dangers and its ability and intent to protect workers because that evidence was relevant to whether Exxon reasonably could rely on the Shipyard and therefore had a duty to intervene.
5. Punitive damages are not available in a negligence action against a vessel owner under section 905(b) of the LHWCA because the statute makes the remedies provided in the subsection exclusive and does not provide punitive damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Exxon owed and breached the LHWCA active-control duty.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Exxon owed and breached the LHWCA duty to intervene.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Exxon's conduct was a substantial contributing factor in causing Minton's mesothelioma.
4. Whether the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of the Shipyard's knowledge of asbestos hazards and its asbestos-safety procedures.
5. Whether punitive damages are available in an action against a vessel owner under section 905(b) of the LHWCA.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded