Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer
Not provided in text (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In toxic tort cases involving multiple potential exposures to a substance that causes an indivisible injury, the plaintiff must prove that the exposure attributable to a defendant was independently sufficient to have caused the harm. Virginia rejects the 'substantial contributing factor' test for causation in favor of a 'multiple sufficient cause' standard.
Facts:
- Starting around 1965, James D. Lokey worked for approximately eight years as a Virginia State Trooper.
- His duties required him to observe vehicle inspections in about 70 different garages, ten days per month.
- During these inspections, Lokey stood within ten feet of mechanics who regularly used compressed air to blow asbestos-containing dust out of vehicle brake assemblies.
- Lokey breathed this visible dust and was not provided with protective equipment or warned of the health risks.
- His inspection rotation included a Ford dealership, and evidence indicated that Bendix was the exclusive supplier of asbestos-containing brake linings for new Fords during this period.
- In the early 1940s, Lokey had also worked for about a year as a pipefitter at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, a potential alternative source of asbestos exposure.
- In 2005, Lokey was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos exposure, and he passed away in 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter E. Boomer, as Administrator of James D. Lokey's estate, sued Ford Motor Company and Honeywell International, Inc. (as successor to Bendix) in the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, a state trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on negligence and breach of warranty theories.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Lokey's estate on the negligence claim and awarded damages.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motions to strike expert testimony and their post-trial motions to set aside the verdict.
- Ford and Honeywell (Bendix) separately appealed the trial court's final judgment to the Supreme Court of Virginia, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a multiple-exposure asbestos case, does Virginia law permit a 'substantial contributing factor' jury instruction for causation, or must the plaintiff prove that the exposure attributable to a single defendant was independently sufficient to have caused the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Millette, Jr.
No. Virginia law does not permit a 'substantial contributing factor' jury instruction for causation in a multiple-exposure asbestos case; instead, the proper standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the exposure from the defendant's product was, by itself, sufficient to have caused the harm. The court found the 'substantial contributing factor' language, which has never been part of Virginia jurisprudence, to be inherently ambiguous and confusing for a jury. It could be interpreted as either lowering or raising the standard of proof, a problem noted by the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which abandoned the language for this reason. The court held that the correct standard is derived from Virginia's established doctrine of 'concurring causes,' where multiple acts occur and each alone would have been sufficient to cause the harm. This 'multiple sufficient cause' analysis is the proper test for the cause-in-fact element of proximate cause in such cases. The court also held that a jury could reasonably infer from circumstantial evidence that Lokey would have heeded an adequate warning, even without his direct testimony on the matter.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the causation standard for toxic tort cases in Virginia, particularly those involving multiple exposures like asbestos litigation. By explicitly rejecting the 'substantial contributing factor' test and adopting the more rigorous 'multiple sufficient cause' standard, the court aligns Virginia with the Restatement (Third) of Torts and raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs. This will likely impact litigation strategy, requiring plaintiffs to present expert testimony specifically establishing that a single defendant's product was not just a contributor but an independently sufficient cause of the disease. This ruling creates a clearer, albeit more difficult, path to recovery for plaintiffs in such complex cases.
