 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alden v. Phifer Wire Products6/16/2005
Judgment: Affirmed
{ } Plaintiffs-appellants Jerome and Laurel Alden ("plaintiffs") appeal from the decision of the Common Pleas Court that granted defendants-appellees Phifer Wire Systems, Inc.'s ("Phifer") and Albert Herman Draperies, Inc.'s ("Herman"), motions for summary judgment in this toxic tort product liability case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{ } Plaintiff Jerome Alden alleges that he sustained injuries as a result of his exposure to toxic compounds that emanated from window shades installed at his workplace in October 1998. Plaintiff maintains that Phifer manufactured, and Herman installed, the shades at his workplace.
{ } Dr. David Preston opined that Jerome suffered from "encephalopathy and/or peripheral neuropathy as a direct and proximate result of exposure to a number of organic compounds, including phenols, * which [Dr. Preston] under[stood] emanated form a new set of screen shades which were installed along a wall of windows in his department." Dr. Cynthia Griggins, by affidavit, opined that Jerome "has cognitive problems which are attributable to toxic exposure he [plaintiff] described."
{ } Plaintiffs also submitted an affidavit from Jerome that incorporated an "Indoor Air Quality Evaluation of wire Screen" that was prepared on March 1, 1995 ("Air Quality Evaluation"). The Air Quality Evaluation was prepared by Air Quality Sciences, Inc. ("AQS") and reported the "results of environmental chamber evaluation of 'wire screen' samples for Phifer Wire Products, Inc."
AQS conducted the environmental tests over a 96-hour period at a temperature of 120° Farenheit. The Interpretive Report expressly provided that " t must be noted that these regulatory lists only provide a statement regarding possible health effects associated with these compounds, and do not provide information on the risks of exposure. Proper interpretation of the risks associated with exposure to a given regulated compound requires a more detailed evaluation of toxicological activity."
{ } Plaintiffs also produced the Material Safety Data Sheet for Sheer Weave 4000(r) that indicates "short-term harmful health effects are not expected from vapor generated during normal use with adequate ventilation at ambient temperatures." The undisputed evidence establishes that the HVAC system at Jerome's workplace was in good working order on October 26, 1998. The record also contains affidavits from some of Jerome's co-workers who noticed a vinyl odor at the workplace on October 26, 1998.
{ } Phifer and Herman filed motions for summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed but the trial court granted. The trial court concluded that plaintiffs failed to present evidence as to the required elements of their product liability claim. The court found lacking an expert report on the issue of product defect and/or any direct evidence to establish that the product in question was defective. Plaintiffs appeal presents the following two assignments of error for our review, which we address together.
{ } "I. The trial court committed reversible error by granting appellee, Phifer Wire Products, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment.
{ } "II. The trial court committed reversible error by granting appellee, Albert Herman Draperies, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment."
{ } We employ a de novo review in determining whether summary judgment was warranted. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 1996-Ohio-336; Zemcik v. La Pine Truck Sales & Equipment (1998), 124 Ohio App.3d 581, 585.
{ } Summary judgment is appropriate where: "(1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) t
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|