Mass Torts: State of the Art

The End of Toxic Tort Litigation in Texas?

If a plaintiff's cancer was caused by one molecule or one fiber damaging a single cell's DNA causing it to become malignant, and plaintiff was exposed to billions of molecules or fibers from multiple sources, how could he possibly prove that ,"but for" any single source of exposure or subset of exposures, he would not have developed his cancer? As stated, this is the Summers v. Tice problem traditionally resulting in burden shifting rather than dismissal so long as the conduct of each defendant was tortious.

Similarly, if plaintiff's cancer was caused by the cumulative effect of any one of several subsets of exposures from multiple sources, e.g. if three widgets were sufficient to cause cancer and plaintiff was exposed to one widget from each of A, B, C and D, she could never prove that "but for" A's widget she wouldn't have gotten cancer since the widgets of B, C and D were sufficient to have caused it; and the same would be true if she sued B, C or D. Again, the traditional answer to plaintiff's problem, assuming each defendant's conduct was tortious, has been to shift the burden of proof on causation. See Landers v. Texas Salt Water Disposal Co.

Suddenly the 5th Court of Appeals has in essence held that Borg-Warner v. Flores puts the burden of proof of causation back on plaintiff; doing so in a case in which the defendant stipulated so-called "general causation". See Georgia-Pacific v. Bostic. There's essentially no discussion of the rationale for imposing a "but for" causation proof burden on a toxic tort plaintiff nor is the impact of this monumental shift in Texas law even discussed so maybe the court didn't intend such a result. Indeed it did proceed to discuss substantial factor causation even after concluding that a "but for" burden was borne by a mesothelioma plaintiff with the result being that plaintiff's evidence was held insufficient to "provide quantitative evidence of [plaintiff's] exposure to asbestos fibers from [defendant's product] or to establish [plaintiff's] exposure was in amounts sufficient to increase his risk of developing mesothelioma."

So if you establish an increase in risk you've established substantial factor causation and that's the same as"but for" causation?! This case has a lot of lawyers scratching their heads.

It's time for a clearly articulated definition of "substantial factor" and it's time to get rid of the confusing and, in cancer cases, nonsensical "general causation" v. "specific causation" dichotomy. More on that after I get home.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.masstortsstateoftheart.com/admin/trackback/220035
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
Columbus, Ohio
52 East Gay Street
PO Box 1008
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008
Phone:
614.464.6400
Washington, D.C.
1909 K Street NW
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006-1152
Phone:
202.467.8800
Cleveland, Ohio
1375 East Ninth Street
2100 One Cleveland Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1724
Phone:
216.479.6100
Cincinnati, Ohio
301 East Fourth Street
Suite 3500, Great American Tower
PO Box 0236
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone:
513.723.4000
Akron, Ohio
106 South Main Street
Suite 1100
Akron, Ohio 44308
Phone:
330.208.1000
Houston, Texas
700 Louisiana Street
Suite 4100
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone:
713.588.7000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
500 Grant Street
Suite 4900
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Phone:
412.904.7700