|
No. 131517
| IN RE CERTIFIED QUESTION |
|
|
| From the Fourteenth Court of Appeals District |
|
|
| of Texas, |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Glenn Miller, Estate of Carolyn Miller, Shawn |
|
Neil A. Kay |
| Dean, John Roland, and Alma Roland, |
|
|
Plaintiffs, |
|
|
| v |
(Original Action) |
|
|
| Ford Motor Company, |
|
Phillip J. DeRosier |
| Defendant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant's Reply Brief>>
Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business Legal
Foundation, American Chemistry Council, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America,
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and American Tort Reform Association
Amici Curiae Brief>>
Supplemental Authority>>
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Trowel Trades, Local No. 1 of
Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Defense Trial Counsel's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Manufacturers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Trial Lawyers Association Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Pacific Legal Foundation's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The plaintiffs, relative of Carolyn Miller, claim that she died from mesothelioma, a form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. From the mid-1950s to 1965, Miller’s stepfather, John Roland, worked for independent contractors who were hired by Ford Motor Company to maintain and refurbish blast furnaces, including the blast furnaces at Ford’s River Rouge plant. The plaintiffs allege that Roland was exposed to asbestos while working there and that Miller in turn was exposed to asbestos when she washed Roland’s work clothes. A Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs $9.5 million as compensation for Miller’s death; the jury also awarded $500,000 to Roland for his asbestos-related injuries. Ford appealed the jury’s verdict to the Texas Court of Appeals. Under Michigan law, which applies to this case because the alleged injuries happened in Michigan, Ford did not have a duty to Miller because was never on or near Ford’s property, Ford contended. Moreover, Ford argued, it did not owe a legal duty to a household member of an independent contractor’s employee. The plaintiffs responded, in part, that Ford should have foreseen not only that workers at the plant would be harmed by asbestos exposure, but also that their family members would be harmed.
Michigan Court Rule 7.305(B) permits federal, tribal, and appellate courts of other states to submit, or certify, questions to the Michigan Supreme Court where the question is one “that Michigan law may resolve and that is not controlled by Michigan Supreme Court precedent….” The Texas Court of Appeals, at Ford’s request and over the plaintiffs’ objection, certified the following question to the Michigan Supreme Court: “Whether, under Michigan law, Ford, as owner of the property on which asbestos-containing produces were located, owed to Carolyn Miller, who was never on or near that property, a legal duty specified in the jury charge submitted by the trial court, to protect her from exposure to any asbestos fibers carried home on the clothing of a member of Carolyn Miller’s household who was working on that property as the employee of an independent contractor.” On December 29, 2006, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the Texas Court of Appeals’ request to answer the certified question.
Top of Page
|
