Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort
         
 

August 2015

 

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Asbestos Verdict on Sole Proximate Cause Argument

 
 
             
 

For more information about this e-Alert, please contact:

 

Luke J. Mangan

Author

314.552.6869

Email | Bio

  

Additional Toxic and Mass Tort Leaders:

  

Dennis J. Dobbels

Practice Area Chair

Author

816.360.4312

Email | Bio

  

Nicole C. Behnen

Practice Area Vice Chair

314.552.6825

Email | Bio

  

  

To learn more about our Toxic and Mass Tort Professionals, click here.

 

For current Intelligence or to learn more about our Toxic and Mass Tort practice, click here.

 

  


View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  

SUBSCRIBE

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn.
   

In Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., the Fourth District of Illinois recently overturned a $1.4 million verdict against the Illinois Central Railroad. At trial, the Court had excluded evidence of the decedent's work at the UNARCO asbestos plant in Bloomington, Illinois on the ground that the defendant did not have an expert to testify that the exposure at UNARCO was the "sole proximate" cause of the decedent's disease, asbestosis. The Fourth District found that the trial court's ruling was erroneous and "particularly egregious."

This decision reaffirms the Illinois Supreme Court's reasoning in both Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago and Nolan v. Weil-McLain and should make it abundantly clear to asbestos trial judges that the "sole proximate cause" defense is not an affirmative defense for which defendants have any burden of proof, as plaintiffs routinely argue, but rather is merely a component of the plaintiff's burden of proving proximate cause.

In its decision, the Fourth District found that the Supreme Court's decisions in Leonardi and Nolan were quite clear that the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the defendant's product was the proximate cause of the disease and that the defendant was entitled to introduce evidence to challenge that argument. Having an expert to testify on "sole proximate cause" was not required to introduce the evidence and challenge plaintiff's claim of concurrent causation.

Per the court: "Based on our supreme court's opinions in Leonardi and Nolan, defendant in this case did not have to prove anything. We find plaintiff's argument defendant had no-proximate-cause defense because he had no expert witnesses disclosed on causation is simply incorrect as a matter of law. Defendant did not need to establish UNARCO was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's condition. However, for plaintiff to prevail, he had to establish defendant was a proximate cause of his asbestosis. While defendant had no obligation to do so, it should have been allowed to present evidence of plaintiff's UNARCO work experience in an attempt to establish plaintiff's exposure at UNARCO was to blame for plaintiff's asbestosis should the jury find plaintiff had asbestosis. Because the trial court did not allow defendant to present this evidence, once the jury found plaintiff had asbestosis, it could only conclude the asbestosis was caused by plaintiff's exposure to asbestos while working for defendant." Id. at p. 36-7.

The ruling provides the opportunity for asbestos defendants to utilize Smith as continued support for the clear mandate that they do not need to prove by expert, or otherwise, that alternative exposures were the sole proximate cause, even in cases in which the diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease is contested. Instead, defendants may argue that the jury be allowed to see the entirety of a plaintiff's asbestos exposures – not just a particular defendant's alleged exposure.

For More Information

For more information on this ruling or how it may impact your business, please contact the author or your Polsinelli attorney.

 
             

             
 

Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Springfield  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington
polsinelli.com

 
             
 
 

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 750 attorneys in 18 offices, serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service and top five percent of firms for innovating new and valuable services*, the firm has risen more than 100 spots in Am Law's annual firm ranking over the past six years. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* BTI Client Service A-Team 2015 and BTI Brand Elite 2015

 
 
             
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2015 Polsinelli PC.

 
             
Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli Toxic and Mass Tort Toxic and Mass Tort