 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Monsanto Co. v. Hall10/6/2005
aterial fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should be entered in that party's favor. Id.
. Monsanto argues that the plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient probative evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to establish the requisite product identification and exposure requirements and the requisite proximate cause in an asbestos products liability action to thereby warrant the denial of summary judgment. In determining this issue, Monsanto asks this Court to adopt the Lohrmann standard, arguing that the plaintiffs must show the frequency, regularity, and proximity of Monsanto's actual product and its exposure to the plaintiffs. 782 F.2d at 1162-63.
. We dealt with this precise issue in another interlocutory appeal which arose directly from this exact litigation in Gorman-Rupp, which was handed down on Aug. 11, 2005. Both Gorman-Rupp and Monsanto are among the 274 corporate defendants whom the plaintiffs sued. Like Monsanto, Gorman-Rupp filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial judge denied. Gorman-Rupp alleged improper use of unauthenticated documents by Hall and sought adoption by this Court, in the context of summary judgment for asbestos cases, of the "frequency, regularity, proximity" standard in Lohrmann. Gorman-Rupp, 908 So. 2d at 751. Gorman-Rupp also contended that the plaintiffs did not establish that any Gorman product used at IP in Natchez actually contained any asbestos. Id.
. Monsanto urges this Court to follow the trend of adopting the Lohrmanntest, which was not expressly adopted by this Court until Gorman-Rupp. The Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, as well as state courts in Arkansas, Maryland, and New Jersey, have all adopted Lohrmann. We joined these jurisdictions in Gorman-Rupp, expressly adopting the Lohrmann test. Id. at 754-57 Monsanto correctly points out that Mississippi law in asbestos cases embodies that test. Indeed, before this Court had adopted the Lohrmann test in GormanRupp, we had noted it as "persuasive." Prescott v. Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 740 So. 2d 301, 311 (Miss. 1999). The plaintiffs argue that this Court should not adopt this test, at least not in this case, because that test lays out a standard for substantial causation not at issue here. However, because of our recent decision in Gorman-Rupp, the plaintiffs' position is without merit. Thus we again hold that in asbestos litigation cases, the frequency, regularity, and proximity test is the proper standard in determining exposure and proximate cause. So that there can be no question, we today add product identification to that standard as well.
. Because the plaintiffs have failed to prove product identification, exposure, and proximate cause of Monsanto's products with any regularity, frequency, or proximity to the plaintiffs, consistent with our holding in Gorman-Rupp, the plaintiffs' case fails.
CONCLUSION
. In asbestos litigation in Mississippi, the proper test to be used is the frequency, regularity, and proximity standard to show product identification of the defendants' actual products, exposure of the plaintiffs to those products, and proximate causation as to the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs. Without question, today's plaintiffs have fallen well short of meeting the Lohrmann test as adopted by this Court in Gorman-Rupp. For these reasons, we reverse the Adams County Circuit Court's denial of summary judgment and render judgment here in favor of Monsanto finally dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and this action with prejudice.
. REVERSED AND RENDERED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY AND DICKIN
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|