Brisboy v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.
384 N.W.2d 39 · Michigan Court of Appeals · 1985
Facts
Charles Rand, an asbestos insulation worker and heavy smoker, died of lung cancer caused by asbestosis. His widow sued Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, one of his employers, for failing to warn about asbestos dangers. The jury found the defendant negligent and Mr. Rand 55% negligent for his smoking, but the trial court refused to apply comparative negligence, holding the defendant 100% liable.
Issue
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on proximate cause, given the decedent's limited exposure to the defendant's product? Did the trial court err by refusing to apply comparative negligence, despite the jury finding the decedent 55% negligent for his smoking, when there was no evidence he knew of the synergistic risk between smoking and asbestos?
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. It held that there was sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause and that the trial court correctly refused to apply comparative negligence because the decedent was not aware of the specific synergistic risk of smoking and asbestos-related lung cancer.
Rule
An actor's negligent conduct is a proximate cause if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, even if other factors contributed. Comparative negligence does not apply if the injured party was not aware, and could not reasonably have been aware, of the specific hazard or synergistic risk that ultimately caused the injury, even if they were aware of a general risk from their conduct.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.