The Third District Court of Appeal in Florida has reversed a previous judgment against Union Carbide Corporation in a wrongful death case involving asbestos exposure. The court's decision, filed on February 26, 2020, affects Paula Font, the personal representative of her late father, Luis Torres, who died from mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos. This ruling is significant as it highlights the complexities of liability in cases involving multiple parties and the admissibility of evidence in court.
The case originated when Torres filed a personal injury claim in 2009, alleging that his exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Union Carbide led to his illness. Following his death in September 2009, Font filed a wrongful death suit against the company in 2010. The case has undergone multiple trials and appeals, with the latest trial resulting in a jury verdict that initially awarded Font nearly $2.8 million after accounting for fault assigned to other parties.
Union Carbide appealed the ruling, claiming that the trial court made several errors that warranted a reversal. The court's opinion noted that the case had a long history, including a previous defense verdict in 2011 and subsequent appeals that led to a new trial in 2016, which resulted in the latest judgment against Union Carbide.
In its ruling, the court identified three main errors in the trial court's handling of the case. First, the court found that the trial court wrongly denied Union Carbide's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding causation. The court stated, "Ms. Font’s evidence...provided competent, substantial evidence sufficient to support a prima facie case..." This indicates that the evidence presented by Font was enough to allow the jury to consider her claims against Union Carbide.
Second, the court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding seven affidavits signed by Torres shortly before his death. These affidavits detailed his exposure to asbestos products from various manufacturers. The court noted that these affidavits were relevant to Union Carbide's defense, stating, "The Excluded Affidavits represent Mr. Torres’s own claim that the seven entities and their identifiable products exposed him to asbestos-containing materials and dust." The exclusion of this evidence was deemed a significant error that could have impacted the jury's verdict.
Finally, the court found that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the "learned intermediary" defense, which Union Carbide argued was essential to its case. The court stated that the refusal to include specific language about fulfilling the duty to warn was a mistake that could mislead the jury. The court concluded that the trial court's errors were not harmless and warranted a new trial.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both parties. For Font, it means she will have to go through another trial to seek damages for her father's death. For Union Carbide, the ruling allows them another opportunity to defend against the claims. This case also underscores the complexities involved in asbestos-related litigation, where multiple parties may share liability.
Looking ahead, the case will return to the trial court for a new jury trial. This new trial will allow both parties to present their evidence again, including the previously excluded affidavits. The court's ruling does not preclude further appeals, and it remains to be seen if either party will seek additional judicial review following the new trial.