Preview
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023
EXHIBIT Z
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023
Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005)
2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P
[1] summary judgment affidavit was not sufficient to
establish that each defendant's product was a substantial
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment factor in seaman's injury;
Disagreed With by Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., E.D.La.,
October 4, 2016
[2]manufacturer of marine valves could not be held liable;
424 F.3d 488
United States Court of Appeals,
[3]manufacturer of marine pumps could not be held liable;
Sixth Circuit.
Rolf L. LINDSTROM, Plaintiff, [4] manufacturer of marine feed pumps could not be held
Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles, liable;
administrators of the estate of Rolf L.
. . [5] manufacturer of marine air compressors could not be
Lmdstrom, deceased, Plamtiffs-Appellants,
held liable; and
v.
A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
[6] manufacturer of marine sheet packing and other
TRUST, et al., Defendants, products could not be held liable.
A.W. Chesterton, Coffin Turbo Pump, Inc.,
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Walworth Company,
Affirmed.
the Anchor Packing Company, Coltec Industries,
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Goulds
Pumps, Inc., Henry Vogt Machine Co., and
John Crane, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. West Headnotes (11)
No. 04-375L
[1] Federal Courts
Questions of Law in General
Argued: June 8, 2005.
Federal Courts
crroneous"
Decided and Filed: Sept. 28, 2005. "Clearly standard of review
in general
Synopsis
. On an appeal from a judgment entered after a
Background: Merchant seaman who worked in the engme
bench trial, the Court of Appeals reviews the
department aboard numerous vessels brought action
district court's findings of fact for clear error
against manufacturers of asbestos-containing products
and its conclusions of law de novo.
under the Jones Act, the General Admiralty and Maritime
law, and traditional product liability law, claiming that 13 Cases that cite this headnote
he contracted mesothelioma as a result of his work-life
exposures to asbestos and asbestos-containing products
[21 Federal Courts
while aboard various steam vessels. The United States
. Credibility and impeachment
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Dan A.
Polster, J., granted judgment, 264 F.Supp.2d Federal Courts
summary
in favor of some defendants and bench Findings
583, following
trial, 316 F.Supp.2d 603, entered judgment in favor of On an appeal from a judgment entered after
remaining defendants. Plaintiff appealed. a bench trial, when the factual findings
involve credibility determinations, the Court
of Appeals affords great deference to the
district court's factual findings.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gibbons, Circuit Judge,
held that:
8 Cases that cite this headnote
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023
Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005)
2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P
to asbestos, however slight, substantially
|3| Products Liability contributed to his development of
-- Strict
liability mesothelioma was not sufficient to establish
Products Liability that each defendant's product was a
.- Negligence or fault substantial factor in seaman's injury, where
Products affidavit did not specifically reference any
Liability
-- Proximate Cause defendant or product.
Plaintiffs in products liability cases under
80 Cases that cite this headnote
maritime law may proceed under both
negligence and strict liability theories; under
either a plaintiff must establish 17] Products Liability
theory,
causation. Proximate Cause
Products Liability
22 Cases that cite this headnote _, Asbestos
Manufacturer of marine valves could not
[4| Products Liability be held liable on seaman's product liability/
Proximate Cause asbestos claim, even though it admitted
Products that its valves contained asbestos-containing
Liability
Asbestos packing and gaskets, since there was no
evidence that seaman was the first person
To establish causation in a products liability/
to remove any original packing or gasket;
asbestos claim, minimal exposure to a
plaintiff worked on ship four years after
defendant's product is insufficient; likewise, a
it was commissioned, manufacturer was not
mere showing that defendant's product was
supplier of replacement packing material or
present somewhere at plaintiff's place of work
replacement gaskets, and coworker testified
is insufficient.
that packing generally had to be replaced a
321 Cases that cite this headnote couple of times a year.
23 Cases that cite this headnote
[5| Products Liability
Asbestos
[8) Products Liability
Products Liability Proximate Cause
- Proximate Cause
Products Liability
To establish causation in a products liability/
Manufacturers in general;identification
asbestos claim, where a plaintiff relies on
Products Liability
proof of exposure to establish that a product
Asbestos
was a substantial factor in causing injury, the
plaintiff must show a high enough level of Manufacturer of marine pumps could
exposure that an inference that the asbestos not be held liable on seaman's product
is more liability/asbestos claim, absent evidence that
was a substantial factor in the injury
than conjectural. manufacturer was responsible for an asbestos-
product and that the asbestos-
containing
366 Cases that cite this headnote containing product was a substantial factor
in causing seaman's damages; seaman did not
identify manufacturer's pumps as one of the
16] Federal Civil Procedure
prevalent types of pumps on ships he worked
Sufficiency of showing
. on and seaman did not identify manufacturer
Summary judgment affidavit in which
as company which produced replacement
doctor stated that seaman's every exposure
asbestos-containing packing used in pumps.
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023
Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005)
2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P
not identify any exposure to asbestos in
159 Cases that cite this headnote
connection to manufacturer's products.
74 Cases that cite this headnote
[91 Products Liability
- Proximate Cause
Products Liability
- Manufacturers in general;identification
Attorneys and Law Firms
Products Liability
Asbestos *490 ARGUED: John C. Cardello, Jacques Admiralty
Manufacturer ofmarine feed pumps could not Law Firm, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants.
be held liable on seaman's products liability/ George F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Swanson, Martin &
asbestos based on his allegation he was Bell, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter,
claim,
exposed to asbestos O'Connell, Mannion & Farchione, Cleveland, Ohio,
by insulation covering the
exterior of the gaskets located on the Holly N. Olarczuk- Smith, Eric Mann, Gallagher, Sharp,
pump,
throttle, in the valve stem, and Fulton & Norman, Cleveland, Ohio, William F. Scully,
pump packing
rings contained in the there Jr., Williams, Sennett & Scully Co., Cleveland, Ohio,
packing pump;
was no evidence that manufacturer produced Stephen H. Daniels, McMahon, DeGulis, Hoffman &
the exterior insulation or the gaskets, and Lombardi, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:
plaintiff failed to establish that dust was John C. Cardello, Donald A. Krispin, Jacques Admiralty
created on valve stem. Law Firm, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants.
by packing
*491 George F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Swanson, Martin &
15 Cases that cite this headnote Bell, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter,
O'Connell, Mannion & Farchione, Cleveland, Ohio, Holly
N. Olarczuk-Smith, Eric Mann, Monica A. Sansalone,
[10] Products Liability
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, Cleveland, Ohio,
Proximate Cause
Stephen H. Daniels. Evan J. Palik, McMahon, DeGulis,
Products Liability Hoffman & Lombardi, Cleveland, Ohio, William F.
Asbestos
Scully, Jr., Williams, Sennett & Scully Co., Cleveland,
Manufacturer of marine air compressors Michael A. Baker & McKenzie,
Ohio, Pollard, Chicago,
could not be held liable on seaman's products Stephanic P. Manson, Walter J. Andrews, Paul
Illinois,
liability/asbestos claim, since seaman failed E. Janaskie, Hunton & Williams, for
McLean, Virginia,
to identify any link between manufacturer's Appellees.
product and any product containing asbestos
with which he came in contact. Before: SILER and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges;
LAWSON, District Judge.
6 Cases that cite this headnote
[Il| Products Liability OPINION
Manufacturers in general;identification
GlBBONS, Circuit Judge.
Products Liability
- Asbestos
Rolf L. Lindstrom, a merchant seaman, brought suit
Manufacturer of marine sheet packing and against numerous defendants compensation for
seeking
other products could not be held liable his a disease he claims was caused
mesothelioma,
on seaman's product liability/asbestos claim, exposure to asbestos released from products
by
even though it admitted that it manufactured manufactured The district court
by defendants-appellees.
asbestos-containing as well as non-asbestos granted judgment in favor of defendants-
summary
containing products, since seaman did appellees Ingersoll Rand Coffin Turbo
Company, Pump,
Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Henry Vogt
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023
Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005)
2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P
Machine Company, and Goulds Pumps, Inc., but denied
John Crane, Inc.'s summary judgment motion. Following
H.
a bench trial, the district court entered a verdict in favor of
John Crane, Inc. Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles, We review a district court's grant of summary judgment
administrators of Lindstrom's estate, now appeal. de novo. Golden v. City of Columbus, 404 F.3d 950, 954
(6th Cir.2005). Summary judgment is appropriate where
For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
district court with respect to all of the defendants· and admissions on file, if any,
together with the affidavits,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
law."
matter of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We must review the
I.
evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light
Lindstrom was employed from 1963 until 1994 as a most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec.
merchant seaman. He worked in the engine department Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106
as a licensed engineer aboard numerous vessels during S.Ct. 1348, 89 L Ed.2d 538 (1986).
this time. In his work, Lindstrom was allegedly exposed
to many pieces of equipment that contained asbestos. |1| 12) On an appeal from a judgment entered after
Lindstrom was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma a bench trial, we review the district court's findings of
of the peritoneum in October 1999 and died of this disease fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.
on June 15, 2003. Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles Pressman v. Franklin Nat'I Bank, 384 F.3d 182, 185 (6th
were appointed as administrators of Lindstrom's estate Cir.2004). When the factual findings involve credibility
and were substituted as plaintiffs. determinations, we afford great deference to the district
court's factual findings. Schroyer v. Franke/, 197 F.3d
Lindstrom filed a complaint in the Northern District 1 170, 1 173 (6th Cir.1.999).
of Ohio in January of 2003 against various defendants
seeking compensation for the mesothelioma, a condition |3| |4| 15| Plaintiffs in products liability cases under
which he asserts he developed as a result of exposure maritime law may proceed under both negligence and
defendants-appellees'
to asbestos contained in products. strict liability theories. Under either theory, a plaintiff
Lindstrom's complaint listed claims of negligence under must establish causation.Stark v. Armstrong World /ndus.,
the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 et seq., unseaworthiness Inc., 21 Fed.Appx. 371, 375 (6th Cir.2001). We have
under maritime law, and products liability claims of design required that a plaintiff show, for each defendant, that
and manufacturing defects. Only the products liability (1) he was exposed to the defendant's product, and (2)
claims are at issue in this appeal. the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury
he suffered. Id In addition, we have permitted evidence
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of of substantial exposure for a substantial period of time
Ingersoll Rand and Coffin Pump in an opinion dated May to provide a basis for the inference that the product
2, 2003. The district court granted summary judgment in was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Id. at
exposure"
favor of Garlock Sealing on May 7, 2003. The district 376. "Minimal to a defendant's product is
court granted summary judgment in favor of Goulds insufficient. Id. Likewise, a mere showing that defendant's
Pumps and Henry Vogt Machine Company, but denied product was present somewhere at plaintiffs place of work
John Crane, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in an is insufficient. Id Rather, where a plaintiff relies on proof
opinion dated May 19, 2003. Lindstrom's claim against of exposure to establish that a product was a substantial
"
John Crane, Inc. proceeded to a bench *492 trial which factor in causing injury, the plaintiff must show 'a
took place from February 18 through February 27, 2004. high enough level of exposure that an inference that the
On May 3, 2004, the district court entered a verdict in asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than
conjectural.' "
favor of John Crane, Inc. Bartel and Peebles filed a notice Id. (quoting Harbour v. Armstrong World
of appeal from the district court's orders with respect to Indus., Inc., No. 90-1414, 1991 WL 65201, at * 4 (6th
the above six defendants-appellees on May 27, 2004. Cir. April 25, 1991)). In other words, proof of substantial
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023
Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005)
2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P
exposure is required for a finding that a product was a in Lindstrom's disease. If
causing
substantial factor in causing injury. an opinion such as Dr. Corson's
would be sufficient for plaintiff
Plaintiffs-appellants urge this court to reject the Stark to meet his burden, the Sixth
approach to causation proof. We decline factor"
their invitation. Circuit's
Preview
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023 EXHIBIT Z FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023 Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005) 2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P [1] summary judgment affidavit was not sufficient to establish that each defendant's product was a substantial KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment factor in seaman's injury; Disagreed With by Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., E.D.La., October 4, 2016 [2]manufacturer of marine valves could not be held liable; 424 F.3d 488 United States Court of Appeals, [3]manufacturer of marine pumps could not be held liable; Sixth Circuit. Rolf L. LINDSTROM, Plaintiff, [4] manufacturer of marine feed pumps could not be held Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles, liable; administrators of the estate of Rolf L. . . [5] manufacturer of marine air compressors could not be Lmdstrom, deceased, Plamtiffs-Appellants, held liable; and v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY [6] manufacturer of marine sheet packing and other TRUST, et al., Defendants, products could not be held liable. A.W. Chesterton, Coffin Turbo Pump, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, Walworth Company, Affirmed. the Anchor Packing Company, Coltec Industries, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Henry Vogt Machine Co., and John Crane, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. West Headnotes (11) No. 04-375L [1] Federal Courts Questions of Law in General Argued: June 8, 2005. Federal Courts crroneous" Decided and Filed: Sept. 28, 2005. "Clearly standard of review in general Synopsis . On an appeal from a judgment entered after a Background: Merchant seaman who worked in the engme bench trial, the Court of Appeals reviews the department aboard numerous vessels brought action district court's findings of fact for clear error against manufacturers of asbestos-containing products and its conclusions of law de novo. under the Jones Act, the General Admiralty and Maritime law, and traditional product liability law, claiming that 13 Cases that cite this headnote he contracted mesothelioma as a result of his work-life exposures to asbestos and asbestos-containing products [21 Federal Courts while aboard various steam vessels. The United States . Credibility and impeachment District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Dan A. Polster, J., granted judgment, 264 F.Supp.2d Federal Courts summary in favor of some defendants and bench Findings 583, following trial, 316 F.Supp.2d 603, entered judgment in favor of On an appeal from a judgment entered after remaining defendants. Plaintiff appealed. a bench trial, when the factual findings involve credibility determinations, the Court of Appeals affords great deference to the district court's factual findings. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gibbons, Circuit Judge, held that: 8 Cases that cite this headnote FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023 Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005) 2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P to asbestos, however slight, substantially |3| Products Liability contributed to his development of -- Strict liability mesothelioma was not sufficient to establish Products Liability that each defendant's product was a .- Negligence or fault substantial factor in seaman's injury, where Products affidavit did not specifically reference any Liability -- Proximate Cause defendant or product. Plaintiffs in products liability cases under 80 Cases that cite this headnote maritime law may proceed under both negligence and strict liability theories; under either a plaintiff must establish 17] Products Liability theory, causation. Proximate Cause Products Liability 22 Cases that cite this headnote _, Asbestos Manufacturer of marine valves could not [4| Products Liability be held liable on seaman's product liability/ Proximate Cause asbestos claim, even though it admitted Products that its valves contained asbestos-containing Liability Asbestos packing and gaskets, since there was no evidence that seaman was the first person To establish causation in a products liability/ to remove any original packing or gasket; asbestos claim, minimal exposure to a plaintiff worked on ship four years after defendant's product is insufficient; likewise, a it was commissioned, manufacturer was not mere showing that defendant's product was supplier of replacement packing material or present somewhere at plaintiff's place of work replacement gaskets, and coworker testified is insufficient. that packing generally had to be replaced a 321 Cases that cite this headnote couple of times a year. 23 Cases that cite this headnote [5| Products Liability Asbestos [8) Products Liability Products Liability Proximate Cause - Proximate Cause Products Liability To establish causation in a products liability/ Manufacturers in general;identification asbestos claim, where a plaintiff relies on Products Liability proof of exposure to establish that a product Asbestos was a substantial factor in causing injury, the plaintiff must show a high enough level of Manufacturer of marine pumps could exposure that an inference that the asbestos not be held liable on seaman's product is more liability/asbestos claim, absent evidence that was a substantial factor in the injury than conjectural. manufacturer was responsible for an asbestos- product and that the asbestos- containing 366 Cases that cite this headnote containing product was a substantial factor in causing seaman's damages; seaman did not identify manufacturer's pumps as one of the 16] Federal Civil Procedure prevalent types of pumps on ships he worked Sufficiency of showing . on and seaman did not identify manufacturer Summary judgment affidavit in which as company which produced replacement doctor stated that seaman's every exposure asbestos-containing packing used in pumps. FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023 Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005) 2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P not identify any exposure to asbestos in 159 Cases that cite this headnote connection to manufacturer's products. 74 Cases that cite this headnote [91 Products Liability - Proximate Cause Products Liability - Manufacturers in general;identification Attorneys and Law Firms Products Liability Asbestos *490 ARGUED: John C. Cardello, Jacques Admiralty Manufacturer ofmarine feed pumps could not Law Firm, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants. be held liable on seaman's products liability/ George F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Swanson, Martin & asbestos based on his allegation he was Bell, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter, claim, exposed to asbestos O'Connell, Mannion & Farchione, Cleveland, Ohio, by insulation covering the exterior of the gaskets located on the Holly N. Olarczuk- Smith, Eric Mann, Gallagher, Sharp, pump, throttle, in the valve stem, and Fulton & Norman, Cleveland, Ohio, William F. Scully, pump packing rings contained in the there Jr., Williams, Sennett & Scully Co., Cleveland, Ohio, packing pump; was no evidence that manufacturer produced Stephen H. Daniels, McMahon, DeGulis, Hoffman & the exterior insulation or the gaskets, and Lombardi, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: plaintiff failed to establish that dust was John C. Cardello, Donald A. Krispin, Jacques Admiralty created on valve stem. Law Firm, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellants. by packing *491 George F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Swanson, Martin & 15 Cases that cite this headnote Bell, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion & Farchione, Cleveland, Ohio, Holly N. Olarczuk-Smith, Eric Mann, Monica A. Sansalone, [10] Products Liability Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman, Cleveland, Ohio, Proximate Cause Stephen H. Daniels. Evan J. Palik, McMahon, DeGulis, Products Liability Hoffman & Lombardi, Cleveland, Ohio, William F. Asbestos Scully, Jr., Williams, Sennett & Scully Co., Cleveland, Manufacturer of marine air compressors Michael A. Baker & McKenzie, Ohio, Pollard, Chicago, could not be held liable on seaman's products Stephanic P. Manson, Walter J. Andrews, Paul Illinois, liability/asbestos claim, since seaman failed E. Janaskie, Hunton & Williams, for McLean, Virginia, to identify any link between manufacturer's Appellees. product and any product containing asbestos with which he came in contact. Before: SILER and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; LAWSON, District Judge. 6 Cases that cite this headnote [Il| Products Liability OPINION Manufacturers in general;identification GlBBONS, Circuit Judge. Products Liability - Asbestos Rolf L. Lindstrom, a merchant seaman, brought suit Manufacturer of marine sheet packing and against numerous defendants compensation for seeking other products could not be held liable his a disease he claims was caused mesothelioma, on seaman's product liability/asbestos claim, exposure to asbestos released from products by even though it admitted that it manufactured manufactured The district court by defendants-appellees. asbestos-containing as well as non-asbestos granted judgment in favor of defendants- summary containing products, since seaman did appellees Ingersoll Rand Coffin Turbo Company, Pump, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Henry Vogt FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023 Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005) 2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P Machine Company, and Goulds Pumps, Inc., but denied John Crane, Inc.'s summary judgment motion. Following H. a bench trial, the district court entered a verdict in favor of John Crane, Inc. Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles, We review a district court's grant of summary judgment administrators of Lindstrom's estate, now appeal. de novo. Golden v. City of Columbus, 404 F.3d 950, 954 (6th Cir.2005). Summary judgment is appropriate where For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, district court with respect to all of the defendants· and admissions on file, if any, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a law." matter of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We must review the I. evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light Lindstrom was employed from 1963 until 1994 as a most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. merchant seaman. He worked in the engine department Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 as a licensed engineer aboard numerous vessels during S.Ct. 1348, 89 L Ed.2d 538 (1986). this time. In his work, Lindstrom was allegedly exposed to many pieces of equipment that contained asbestos. |1| 12) On an appeal from a judgment entered after Lindstrom was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma a bench trial, we review the district court's findings of of the peritoneum in October 1999 and died of this disease fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. on June 15, 2003. Willard E. Bartel and David C. Peebles Pressman v. Franklin Nat'I Bank, 384 F.3d 182, 185 (6th were appointed as administrators of Lindstrom's estate Cir.2004). When the factual findings involve credibility and were substituted as plaintiffs. determinations, we afford great deference to the district court's factual findings. Schroyer v. Franke/, 197 F.3d Lindstrom filed a complaint in the Northern District 1 170, 1 173 (6th Cir.1.999). of Ohio in January of 2003 against various defendants seeking compensation for the mesothelioma, a condition |3| |4| 15| Plaintiffs in products liability cases under which he asserts he developed as a result of exposure maritime law may proceed under both negligence and defendants-appellees' to asbestos contained in products. strict liability theories. Under either theory, a plaintiff Lindstrom's complaint listed claims of negligence under must establish causation.Stark v. Armstrong World /ndus., the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 et seq., unseaworthiness Inc., 21 Fed.Appx. 371, 375 (6th Cir.2001). We have under maritime law, and products liability claims of design required that a plaintiff show, for each defendant, that and manufacturing defects. Only the products liability (1) he was exposed to the defendant's product, and (2) claims are at issue in this appeal. the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury he suffered. Id In addition, we have permitted evidence The district court granted summary judgment in favor of of substantial exposure for a substantial period of time Ingersoll Rand and Coffin Pump in an opinion dated May to provide a basis for the inference that the product 2, 2003. The district court granted summary judgment in was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Id. at exposure" favor of Garlock Sealing on May 7, 2003. The district 376. "Minimal to a defendant's product is court granted summary judgment in favor of Goulds insufficient. Id. Likewise, a mere showing that defendant's Pumps and Henry Vogt Machine Company, but denied product was present somewhere at plaintiffs place of work John Crane, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in an is insufficient. Id Rather, where a plaintiff relies on proof opinion dated May 19, 2003. Lindstrom's claim against of exposure to establish that a product was a substantial " John Crane, Inc. proceeded to a bench *492 trial which factor in causing injury, the plaintiff must show 'a took place from February 18 through February 27, 2004. high enough level of exposure that an inference that the On May 3, 2004, the district court entered a verdict in asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural.' " favor of John Crane, Inc. Bartel and Peebles filed a notice Id. (quoting Harbour v. Armstrong World of appeal from the district court's orders with respect to Indus., Inc., No. 90-1414, 1991 WL 65201, at * 4 (6th the above six defendants-appellees on May 27, 2004. Cir. April 25, 1991)). In other words, proof of substantial FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2023 08:35 PM INDEX NO. 815818/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2023 Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust, 424 F.3d 488 (2005) 2005 A.M.C. 2425, 2005 Fed.App. 0400P exposure is required for a finding that a product was a in Lindstrom's disease. If causing substantial factor in causing injury. an opinion such as Dr. Corson's would be sufficient for plaintiff Plaintiffs-appellants urge this court to reject the Stark to meet his burden, the Sixth approach to causation proof. We decline factor" their invitation. Circuit's