Reiter, arose out of the consolidated appeal of three (3)
Plaintiffs who worked as steel workers at Bethlehem Steel in the Sparrows Point
facility. The Plaintiffs were William Johnson, William Reiter, and Harold
Williams, and they alleged that the Defendants' asbestos-containing products
caused them personal injuries.
Decedent Johnson worked in Bethlehem Steel's slab yard
for approximately twelve (12) years; Decedent Reiter worked in
BethlehemDecember 7, 2010 Steel's tin mill for approximately 53 years; and
Decedent Williams worked around the entire facility for approximately 29
years.
The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Cutler-Hammer,
Square D, and Pneumo Abex manufactured asbestos-containing brakes, which
were used on cranes around the respective Plaintiffs' work sites. The
Plaintiffs alleged that they were exposed to fibers and dusts from those
brakes, which caused them personal injuries.
In determining whether the Plaintiffs sufficiently
identified the Defendants, the Court of Appeals first considered the
"specific site" where each plaintiff worked because, as required by
Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., the
Plaintiffs must produce evidence of exposure to a specific product on a
regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the
Plaintiff actually worked. The Court held that Plaintiffs' specific site was
limited to the area in the facility where the Plaintiffs worked on a
day-to-day basis. The Court found that it is insufficient to merely prove
that the Defendants manufactured asbestos products that were located on the
premises of the facility. Instead, the Court held that the Plaintiffs had to
identify the Defendants' products in the limited area in which the
Plaintiffs actually worked.
The Court found that Decedent Reiter only proved that
Square D brakes were used somewhere on the
480-acre facility. The Court found that Decedent Reiter failed to establish
that Square D brakes were used on the cranes in the tin mill.
The Court found that Decedent Williams failed to
identify which defendants' asbestos product was used on the crane at the
specific site where Decedent Williams worked.
The Court found that Decedent Johnson failed to produce
evidence to show that Square D brakes were used on the crane in Decedent
Johnson's specific work site in the slab yard.
Therefore, since each plaintiff failed to specifically
identify the Defendants' products in the limited area in which they worked,
the Court held that the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
Top
