Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
722 F.2d 1289 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), the term 'predecessor in interest' does not require strict legal privity; it is satisfied if a party in the prior proceeding had a similar motive and an adequate opportunity to develop the testimony of an unavailable witness.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs John Ed Clay and Curtis Bailey were exposed to asbestos-containing products during their employment.
- The products were manufactured by defendants including Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
- As a result of their exposure, Clay and Bailey developed asbestosis.
- In a prior, unrelated products liability case, DeRocco v. Forty-eight Installation, Inc., a deposition was taken of Dr. Kenneth Wallace Smith, a physician for another major asbestos manufacturer, Johns-Manville.
- Dr. Smith's deposition testimony was relevant to the extent of knowledge that asbestos manufacturers had about the hazards of their products.
- Raybestos-Manhattan was not a party to the DeRocco case in which Dr. Smith's deposition was taken.
- Dr. Smith died before the trial of the current case, making him unavailable to testify.
Procedural Posture:
- John Ed Clay and Curtis Bailey, joined by their wives, sued Johns-Manville Sales Corporation and Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
- At trial, the plaintiffs sought to introduce the deposition testimony of Dr. Kenneth Wallace Smith from a prior case, but the District Judge excluded it.
- The District Judge instructed the jury that a temporary 10-year Tennessee statute of limitations could bar the plaintiffs' claims if their injuries were discovered within a specific one-year window.
- A jury returned verdicts in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiffs appealed the judgment against them to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- During the appeal, Johns-Manville filed for bankruptcy, and the Court of Appeals stayed the proceedings as to that defendant, leaving Raybestos-Manhattan as the sole active appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'predecessor in interest' under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) require strict privity, or is it satisfied when a party in a prior proceeding had a similar motive and opportunity to develop the testimony of a now-unavailable witness?
Opinions:
Majority - George Clifton Edwards, Jr.
No. The term 'predecessor in interest' under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) is not confined to its narrow, common-law sense of privity but rather adopts a more practical approach based on similarity of motive and interest. Citing the legislative history of the rule and adopting the Third Circuit's reasoning in Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc., the court concludes that the original drafters of the rule and Congress intended a 'realistically generous' interpretation over a 'formalistically grudging' one. The key inquiry is whether the party in the prior proceeding had a 'like motive to cross-examine about the same matters' and an 'adequate opportunity for such examination.' In this case, the defendants in the earlier DeRocco case, as fellow asbestos manufacturers, had a similar motive to confront and cross-examine Dr. Smith’s testimony regarding industry knowledge as Raybestos-Manhattan has in the present litigation. Therefore, the deposition should have been admitted. The court also held that a Tennessee statutory amendment exempting asbestos cases from a 10-year statute of repose should be applied retroactively, finding that the state's older 'vested rights' doctrine would no longer be applied by the Tennessee Supreme Court to bar such claims.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of the 'predecessor in interest' exception to the hearsay rule under FRE 804(b)(1). By rejecting a strict privity requirement in favor of a functional 'similar motive' test, the court makes it easier to admit prior testimony in complex litigation, particularly in mass tort cases involving multiple defendants with shared interests. This ruling reduces the burden on plaintiffs who would otherwise need to re-establish facts through live testimony in every case, which is especially important when key witnesses are no longer available. The decision aligns the Sixth Circuit with other circuits favoring a liberal interpretation of the rule, promoting consistency in federal evidence law.
Unlock the full brief for Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.