In McCrossin v. IMO Industries, Inc., W.D. Washington No. 3:14-CV-05382, 2015 WL 575155, (Feb. 11, 2015), the U.S. District Court denied two defendants' motions for summary judgment in an asbestos case, holding that the plaintiff demonstrated genuine issues of material fact. The case is not a monumental decision, rather, the case demonstrates the proper application of a simple notion: if the plaintiff produces evidence demonstrating the basis of his claims, the credibility or weight of that evidence is non-consequential. All too often courts undertake a weighing of evidence approach to summary judgment that divests a plaintiff of the right to have his day in court. The court in McCrossin applied the Civ.R. 56 standard in a textbook fashion.
In that case, the plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos causing malignant mesothelioma, while serving aboard the U.S.S. Trenton in the mid-1970s. According to the plaintiff, the construction of the ship required the installation of Insulag, a refractory cement that contained asbestos materials. One of the defendants, Lone Star, distributed the material through its predecessor Pioneer Sand & Gravel. The other defendant, Lockheed, built the Trenton. Both defendants sought summary judgment essentially claiming that the plaintiff's evidence of causation was implausible and the plaintiff's witnesses can withstand no scrutiny. There were secondary issues in the case, but the crux of all the arguments focused on the claim that the defendants' evidentiary submissions were stronger. To the contrary, the plaintiff demonstrated that the Insulag installed in the Trenton contained asbestos, the Pioneer delivered the product to the shipyard, and Lockheed installed it. Further, the plaintiff demonstrated that asbestos was disturbed during an overhaul performed on the ship, which exposed the plaintiff to the asbestos materials and caused the resultant mesothelioma.
As already mentioned, its not a monumental decision and will likely be relegated to a string cite in future briefs demonstrating that not all cases should be decided based on a motion for summary judgment. At the end of the day, it is a good result for the plaintiff who now gets to test his theory at trial, before a jury of his peers.
