Login | March 28, 2024

9th District appellate court reverses Goodyear asbestos case

TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter

Published: June 18, 2018

A Summit County Common Pleas Court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in an asbestos case, according to the 9th District Court of Appeals.

Margie Taylor originally sued Goodyear in Cuyahoga County on behalf of her late father, Russell Young.

Case summary indicates that Taylor claimed Young was exposed to asbestos while working on aircraft brake linings while employed at Goodyear Aerospace Corp.

After certain defendants were dismissed, Taylor re-filed her case in Summit County. The trial court granted Goodyear’s motions for summary judgment on her claims for negligence, premises liability, negligent undertaking and employer intentional tort for res judicata, as well as for the products liability claim.

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on the res judicata grounds but sustained summary judgment on her products liability basis.

Taylor argued her father was exposed to asbestos while working in the wheel and brake division. She claimed Goodyear, not Aerospace, manufactured the asbestos containing brake linings in its vinyl division and that by the time they were transferred to the wheel and brake division for assembly, they were finished products that had left the control of the manufacturer (Goodyear).

Goodyear denied having control over the wheel and brake division.

Citing a similar Summit County case called Blakely v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. that relied on the Third District’s decision in Moeller v. Auglaize Erie Machine Co., (3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-08-10, 2009-Ohio-301), the trial court found no evidence the brake linings ever left the control of Goodyear at any time during Young’s exposure.

However, the 9th District panel noted that Moeller focused on whether the manufacturer maintained control of the product, not whether the manufacturing process was complete.

Writing for the court, 9th District Judge Jennifer Hensal stated: “Even assuming without deciding that a product is still in the manufacturing process is, as a matter of law, in the control of the manufacturer for purposes of product liability, we are troubled by the court’s analysis in this case. Specifically, we are troubled by the fact that the parties disputed below – and continue to dispute on appeal – whether Goodyear manufactured the brake linings, and whether Goodyear controlled the wheel and brake division.

“Yet the trial court, without any explanation or analysis, determined that Goodyear manufactured the brake linings, and that Goodyear controlled the wheel and brake division. It then relied upon those facts to determine that `there is no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the brake linings ever left the control of Goodyear at any time during Mr. Young’s alleged exposure.’ “

Appellate judges Julie Schafer and Lynne Callahan concurred.

The case is cited Taylor v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2018-Ohio-2179.


[Back]