Gorton v. Eaton Corp.

1

RHONDA J. GORTON, Personal Representative for the Estate of THOMAS D. GORTON, II, and in her own right, Plaintiff, v. Eaton Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Civ. Action No. 1:17-1110

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

October 13, 2022

OPINION

JOY FLOWERS CONTI, SENIOR UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

Decedent Thomas Gorton (“Mr. Gorton”), the husband of plaintiff Rhonda J. Gorton (“Mrs. Gorton”) developed mesothelioma, allegedly due to his occupational exposure to the asbestos-containing products manufactured by among others, defendant Eaton Corporation (“Eaton”) which is a successor-in-interest to Cutler-Hammer Inc. (“Cutler-Hammer”).^[1] Mrs. Gorton brought this lawsuit which was removed to this court, on behalf of Mr. Gorton's estate and in her own right. Mrs. Gorton reached settlement agreements with many of the defendants in the litigation.

Currently pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 567) filed by Eaton in which Eaton argues, among other things, that summary judgment should be granted in its favor because the evidence of record is insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Gorton ever worked with or around an asbestos-containing product attributable to Cutler-Hammer. Mrs. Gorton argues in response that the evidence of record is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Gorton was exposed to Cutler-Hammer's motor controllers onboard the United States Navy's “USS Blue” when he worked as an electrician mate from 1959 through 1961. As set forth fully in this opinion, while somewhat of a close call, viewing the evidence adduced in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, Mrs. Gorton, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the court must conclude that the evidence of record is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Gorton was exposed while onboard the USS Blue from 1959-1961 to asbestos during his work on Cutler-Hammer motor controllers and that exposure was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Gorton's mesothelioma and death. Eaton's motion for summary judgment will, therefore, be denied.

II. Procedural History

On June 23, 2017, this diversity action was removed from the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Gorton and Mrs. Gorton were the plaintiffs and named at least sixty-five defendants in the complaint, including Eaton. (Id. at 1-4.) The following six counts were asserted in the complaint: (1) count I: products liability; (2) count II: breach of implied warranty; (3) count III: negligence; (4) count IV: intentional conduct-fraudulent concealment; (5) count V: premises liability (against only certain defendants not including Eaton); and (6) count VI: loss of consortium. (Id.) All the claims except for count V for premises liability were asserted against Eaton. (Id.) In the complaint, it was alleged that the defendants caused Mr. Gorton to contract mesothelioma when he was exposed to asbestos while employed by or working with the products manufactured by the defendants. On August 30, 2017, Eaton filed an answer to the complaint, affirmative defenses, and crossclaims against its codefendants. (ECF No. 144.)

Certain defendants engaged in motions practice with respect to the original complaint, and the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On or about March 6, 2018, Mr. Gorton passed away. On July 9, 2018, Mrs. Gorton filed an amended complaint alleging for the first time that the negligent actions of the defendants, including Eaton, caused Mr. Gorton's death, i.e., Mrs. Gorton in the amended complaint for the first time set forth a claim of wrongful death against the defendants.^[2] After motions practice by certain defendants with respect to the first amended complaint and the court's resolution of a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Mrs. Gorton filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 422.) The second amended complaint included amendments with respect to defendants in this case other than Eaton and not relevant to the motion currently pending before this court.

On April 11, 2022, Eaton filed the pending motion for summary judgment, brief in support of the motion, and a concise statement of material fact. (ECF Nos. 567, 568.) On May 6, 2022, Mrs. Gorton filed a responsive statement of facts and brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 573, 574.) On May 20, 2022, Eaton filed a reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment and a reply statement of facts. (ECF No. 579.) On May 31, 2022, Eaton filed the parties' Combined Concise Statement of Material Facts (“CCSMF”). (ECF No. 581.)

The motion for summary judgment having been fully briefed is now ripe for disposition by the court.

III. Factual Background

From the 1930s through the early 1980s, Cutler-Hammer, which in 2002 became known as “Eaton Electrical Inc.” (CCSMF (ECF No. 581) ¶ 9; ECF No. 573-11 at 3), manufactured and sold electrical equipment and friction products containing asbestos, (ECF No. 573-11 at 4). Cutler-Hammer began selling its products to the United States Navy as far back as 1904. (ECF No. 573-12 at 3.) Cutler-Hammer manufactured motor controllers that were suitable for use aboard Navy ships and submarines. (ECF No. 573-13 at 6.) Cutler-Hammer manufactured and sold electrical equipment, some of which may have incorporated asbestos-containing components, from the 1930s through early 1980s. (ECF No. 573-11.)

In 1959, after Mr. Gorton completed electrician school, he was assigned as an electrician mate to the USS Blue, which was a support ship for aircraft carriers. (CCSMF (ECF No. 581) ¶ 6; ECF No. 573-2 at 15.) Approximately 350 people were assigned to the USS Blue. (ECF No. 573-2 at 19.) Electrician mates were required to complete a daily four-hour watch in an engine room^[3] of the USS Blue. (CCSMF (ECF No. 581) ¶ 7; ECF No. 573-2 at 17.) There were two engine rooms onboard the USS Blue. (ECF No. 573-5 at 16.) There were four electrician mates and two supervisors. (ECF No. 573-5 at 13.) When the electrician mates were not on the four-hour watch, they performed repairs and maintenance on electrical distribution systems on board the USS Blue. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Mr. Gorton identified Cutler-Hammer as one of the manufacturers of motor controllers, electrical motors, and other electrical equipment onboard the USS Blue on which he performed work. (CCSMF (ECF No. 581) ¶¶ 9, 31; ECF No. 573-3 at 35-36; ECF No. 573-5 at 43-46.) A motor controller regulates the voltage and amperage of electricity that goes to an electric motor. It starts, stops, and controls the speed of the electric motor. (ECF No. 573-13 at 7.) The components of a motor controller are: the box, the electrical enclosure, the internal switches, internal wires going to capacitors, and rheostats and other internal electrical components. (Id. at 7-8.) The motor controller supplied by Cutler-Hammer to the Navy contained a “complete unit.” (Id. at 8.) Mr. Gorton described a motor controller as follows:

[I]t is the switching unit. It would have buttons on it, and it has contacts inside, and when you turn it on, it provides the power to the pump, so it's actually a switch.. ..Some of it was bakelite.^[4]The portion where the contacts of the switch inside the termination points were on bakelite strips, and that definitely was asbestos material.

(ECF No. 573-3 at 35.) The motor controllers were enclosed in steel boxes that were either 8” by 8” or 2' by 2'. (ECF No. 573-2 at 40.) The Cutler-Hammer motor controllers were gray and had the Cutler-Hammer logo (which was red and black) on them. (ECF No. 573-3 at 185.) Mr. Gorton described the contents of a motor controller as follows:

In the controllers there was [sic] contacts. The power leads would come in usually from the bottom, terminate on a screw connection on the bottom and these were separated by insulators because of-there was three legs to the circuit so they had separators in there to keep them from shorting out, and that's where the wires would terminate, on the base of those contacts.

(ECF No. 573-2 at 41.) The insulators were vertical and brown and insulated the legs of the circuit, which produced heat from current flow. (Id. at 41-43.) There were “a lot” of motor controllers onboard the USS Blue. Mr. Gorton explained:

Oh, goodness, I couldn't estimate, but there were a lot of them, because everything operated -- even the exhaust fans would operate off of these above deck, not even in the engine rooms or fire rooms, but they'd be in various compartments on the ship.

(ECF No. 573-3 at 40-41.)

Mr. Gorton described the frequency of his work on the motor controllers as follows:

Whenever there was a malfunction of a pump or a electrical device, the control mechanism had to be checked out. Usually the arcing would appear on the contacts and you'd reburnish -- re -- I'm trying to think of the word -- burnish the contacts in the controller, which means it's cleaning them up so that it makes better contact and the motor would function.

There was so many on board it was just a constant flow. Maybe not on the one particular one, but there was so many of them it was a constant job function. There would always be at least one or two somewhere that were malfunctioning.

(ECF No. 573-3 at 40.) In other words, Mr. Gorton worked on motor controllers as a regular part of his daily job onboard the USS Blue. Those motor controllers contained asbestos. (ECF No. 573-2 at 24-26.) Specifically, Mr. Gorton learned in electrician school that the Bakelite material and fuses inside the motor controller contained asbestos. (CCSMF (ECF No. 581) ¶ 14) ¶ 10; ECF No. 573-2 at 42-43; ECF No....