 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Asbestos Litigation9/15/2003
ications for the product, which conduct was the proximate and substantial cause of the claimant's injury;
(5) The seller did not alter, modify, assemble or mishandle the product while in the seller's possession in a manner which was the proximate and substantial cause of the claimant's injury ; and
(6) The seller had not received notice of the defect from purchasers of similar products.
Wagner argues that it is a seller of manufactured goods in a sealed container and, as such, is entitled to the protections afforded by Section 7001. The plaintiffs counter by arguing that Wagner does not meet the requirements to qualify for the Section 7001 defense. We need not decide generally whether Wagner qualifies as a supplier entitled to the Section 7001 defense, because the statute was enacted several years after the alleged wrongful conduct occurred.
Wagner contends that Section 7001 applies to every claim against the distributor that was filed after the statute became effective in June of 1987. Were this Court to apply Section 7001 as of the date an action is filed, however, the Sealed Container Defense Law would produce arbitrary results. Each plaintiff in this case was exposed to asbestos no later than 1973, fourteen years before Section 7001 became the law of Delaware. The time in which each plaintiff filed his or her action varied only because the asbestos exposure led to different latent diseases that developed at different times in each of the plaintiffs. Wagner cannot assert a viable defense against some plaintiffs but not others simply because some plaintiffs did not discover their injuries until after 1987.
We conclude that the Sealed Container Law is more appropriately construed as applying to all sales that occurred after the statute's 1987 enactment rather than applying the defense to all claims filed after 1987. A plaintiff should not be barred from presenting a claim to a jury simply because the statute was enacted before the injury was discovered. Because the statute offers sellers a defense that did not exist at common law, we must construe the defense strictly against the party it benefits. A strict construction of Section 7001 requires us to apply the statute's effective date to the time of the alleged wrongful conduct, regardless of when the plaintiffs discovered that conduct.
Conclusion
We reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|