Products Liability Law Reporter

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a jury verdict in a mesothelioma lawsuit that attributed most of the fault to the decedent’s employer, not to the manufacturer and distributor of asbestos-containing products, was not internally inconsistent.

Jerry Bagwell worked as a laborer, driller, and welder on various barges from approximately 1978 to 1986. He was required to perform duties that exposed him to asbestos fibers constantly, which led to his death from malignant mesothelioma. A lawsuit alleged that various defendants, including Union Carbide Corp. and Montello, Inc., the manufacturer and distributor of certain asbestos-containing products, were liable for Bagwell’s asbestos exposure and death. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs, apportioning liability at 75% to Bagwell’s employer and 25% to a nonparty. The jury concluded that Union Carbide and Montello were not at fault.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. An intermediate appellate court affirmed on liability but later reversed on rehearing, granting a new trial on the basis that the jury verdict was internally inconsistent. The court found that the jury’s conclusion that the employer’s responsibility for Bagwell’s exposure to asbestos without assigning fault to the source of the asbestos-containing products, particularly drilling mud additives, was logically impossible.

Reversing the lower appellate court, the state high court noted that the jury interrogatory contained the question of whether Bagwell’s exposure was a substantial contributing cause of his disease and even stated for the jury that not every asbestos exposure is a substantial contributing factor. Thus, the court said, the jury could have reasonably found that the Union Carbide and Montello products to which Bagwell was allegedly exposed were not unreasonably dangerous and did not cause his mesothelioma. Evidence at trial showed that these defendants had complied with federal standards in packaging, labeling, and handling their asbestos-containing products, the court added, reiterating that the jury could therefore have rationally concluded that Bagwell’s injury resulted only from his employer’s mishandling of the products.

Consequently, the court held that the jury’s verdict was not internally inconsistent and reinstatement of judgment on the merits was warranted.

Citation: Bagwell v. Union Carbide Corp., 308 So. 3d 289 (La. 2021).