 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schmidt v. A-Best Products Co.11/22/2004
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
{ } Appellant Betty Schmidt, Executrix of the Estate of William Schmidt, et al., ("Appellant") appeals the decision of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee Dana Corporation, Appellee Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC ("Garlock"), Appellee Lincoln Electric Company ("Lincoln Electric") and Appellee Industrial Holdings Corporation ("Industrial Holdings"). The following facts give rise to this appeal.
{ } During his lifetime, the decedent, William Schmidt, Sr., worked at Republic Steel as a meter reader, from 1952 until 1958. From 1959 until 1993, the decedent worked at J & L Specialty Steel ("J & L") as a laborer, slitter operator and maintenance worker. In June 2002, as a result of alleged exposure to asbestos products during his employment, appellant filed a complaint against numerous defendants, including Appellees Dana Corporation, Garlock, Lincoln Electric and Industrial Holdings. Appellant's complaint is based upon negligence and product liability. In her complaint, appellant alleges the decedent, William Schmidt, Sr., sustained injuries and died due to his exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by appellees.
{ } Appellees filed individual motions for summary judgment. In their motions for summary judgment, appellees alleged appellant was unable to establish the decedent's exposure to their products and/or that such products were a substantial factor causing the decedent's injuries and death. In response to appellees' motions for summary judgment, appellant relied upon her own deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of the decedent's co-workers, James Renshaw and Dale Kaiser. In November 2003, the trial court granted appellees' motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that appellant failed to demonstrate the decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured by appellees and/or that appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to meet the substantial factor burden set forth in Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 1995-Ohio-286.
{ } Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignments of error for our consideration:
{ } "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT (SIC)-APPELLEES PREMATURELY FOR LACK OF CAUSATION.
{ } "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT (SIC)-APPELLEES AS GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST."
"Summary Judgment Standard"
{ } Summary judgment proceedings present the appellate court with the unique opportunity of reviewing the evidence in the same manner as the trial court. Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 36. As such, we must refer to Civ.R. 56 which provides, in pertinent part:
{ } "* * * Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|