 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alder v. Bayer Corp.11/26/2002
icians. They maintain that they have been largely confined to their homes by severe reactions to a large array of common chemicals and by their extreme fatigue. In April 1995, the hospital modified the ventilation system in the mammography suite by installing a seven-inch vent directly to the outside. No air quality tests were performed before this remediation.
Ultimately, Technicians brought this action against AGFA, alleging that the chemical exposure resulting from AGFA's negligent installation and servicing of its Curix x-ray processing machine proximately caused their illness. AGFA moved for summary judgment on the basis that Technicians' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations on defective product strict liability claims under Utah Code Ann. section 78-15-3. The district court denied summary judgment, holding that none of Technicians' claims involved a defective product, but rather that the case involved alleged negligence of people. AGFA next moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no duty relative to the hospital's ventilation system, that Technicians could prove no chemical exposure and no injury because MCS is not a medically accepted diagnosis and involves novel and unreliable science, and that therefore Technicians' expert testimony was inadmissible. The court excluded all MCS-related expert testimony, classified all of Technicians' alleged injuries as MCS, and granted summary judgment in favor of AGFA. Technicians appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We will affirm summary judgment only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Tustian v. Schriever, 2001 UT 84, 13, 34 P.3d 755. We review the trial court's legal conclusions for correctness, granting no deference. Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, 15, 44 P.3d 781 (citing Utah Coal & Lumber Rest., Inc. v. Outdoor Endeavors Unlimited, 2001 UT 100, 9, 40 P.3d 581). "'In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.'" DCM Inv. Corp. v. Pinecrest Inv. Co., 2001 UT 91, 6, 34 P.3d 785 (quoting Dixon v. Pro Image, Inc., 1999 UT 89, 12, 987 P.2d 48). We review the district court's admission or exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 138, 118 S. Ct. 512, 515, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508, 514 (1997).
ANALYSIS
I. DID AGFA'S INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CURIX X-RAY PROCESSOR CREATE A DUTY OF CARE TO TECHNICIANS?
A. Product Liability Statute of Limitations
We emphasize at the outset that the district court was correct in denying AGFA's product liability statute of limitations motion for summary judgment. The court held that the claims brought here do not involve a defect or malfunction in the Curix machine itself and concluded that "this is a negligence case only." Nonetheless, AGFA continues to argue, as a fall-back position, that Technicians claims are time-barred by the two-year Product Liability Act statute of limitation, Utah Code Ann. ยง 78-15-3 (1996).
Utah Code Ann. section 78-15-6 (1996) provides in part:
(1) No product shall be considered to have a defect or to be in a defective condition, unless at the time the product was sold by the manufacturer or other initial seller, there was a defect or defective condition in the product which made the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer.
(2) As used in this act, "unreasonably dangerous" means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|