Preview:

Headnote: Garlock, Inc., et al. v. Richard Gallagher, et al., No. 1268, September Term 2001. CIVIL PROCEDURE - MD. RULE 2-506 - VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL - CROSSCLAIM - Defendants' voluntary dismissal of its claim against two cross-defendants was valid, even though plaintiffs objected to the maneuver. Although plaintiffs held an interest in the cross-claim, they were not parties to it, and Maryland Rule 2-506(a) is clear that only parties need sign the stipulation of dismissal. Plaintiffs previously had settled with the cross-defendants, which precluded them from reviving any claim that they had against those defendants. Nor could plaintiffs or the trial court force defendants to prosecute a claim that would benefit plaintiffs. UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT TORT-FEASORS ACT - PRO-TANTO RELEASE Where cross-defendant signed a pro tanto release with plaintiffs before trial, it was not a party to the primary claim, nor a shareholder in that liability. Accordingly, the trial court should not have counted the cross-defendant as a share in dividing the verdict. The cross-defendant was responsible only for contribution to the cross-plaintiff.

REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1268 September Term, 2001

GARLOCK, INC., et al.

V.

RICHARD GALLAGHER, et al.

Sonner, Alpert, Paul E.,
(Retired, specially assigned)

Moylan, Charles E., Jr.,
(Retired, specially assigned)

JJ.

Opinion by Sonner, J.

Filed: January 17, 2003

REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1268 September Term, 2001

GARLOCK, INC., et al.

V.

RICHARD GALLAGHER, et al.

Sonner, Alpert, Paul E.,
(Retired, specially assigned)

Moylan, Charles E., Jr.,
(Retired, specially assigned)

JJ.
Opinion by Sonner, J.

Filed:

This appeal arises from the consolidated tort actions of Christine Gallagher and Mary Tamburrino, the surviving spouses of Richard Gallagher and James Tamburrino.1 The men allegedly died

from asbestos that they were exposed to in their working lives, Richard Gallagher as a pipe fitter, and James Tamburrino as a warehouseman. Although plaintiffs listed more than a dozen

defendants in their original complaint, at this juncture, the active defendants are John Crane, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; Anchor Packing Company; and ACandS, Inc. Notwithstanding the consolidation of the tort actions below, some of the legal issues raised in this appeal refer only to the Gallagher plaintiffs, while others stem from the Tamburrino case. Still, there are a number of issues that overlap within the two cases. Accordingly, in an organization that makes sense to us, we

have categorized the appellate questions into three sets: (I) the Gallagher issues; (II) the Tamburrino issues; and (III) the overlap issues. I. The Gallagher Issues A. Evidence at Trial We begin with a review of the evidence presented at trial. 1998, Gallagher was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In

The cancer

obliterated the left pleura in his throat, encasing the lung and chest wall, and then spread to other organs in his body. He died

A third case in the consolidation involved the decedent John Grey, but there is no appeal in that matter.

1

before trial, but the jury heard from him by way of a videotaped deposition, taken some months before his death. From that

videotape, the jury learned that Richard Gallagher worked as a pipe fitter for Bethlehem Steel in Sparrows Point, Maryland, from 1946 until his retirement in 1979. The labyrinth of pipes in the steel plant carried steam and corrosive fluids, which needed to be contained and not released into the surrounding environment. For the better part of

Gallagher's work life, the plant used asbestos, a natural mineral product, to insulate the pipes and maintain the flow of materials. Gallagher's primary asbestos exposure derived from gaskets, which pipe fitters use to seal the "flanges," or connections, between pipes. Gallagher explained that he cut and shaped gaskets prior to installation, and removed old gaskets by hand scraping or power grinding, two processes that produced visible dust. He identified

Crane gaskets, as well as some other brands, and testified to working with these products "everyday." Moreover, Gallagher

described his asbestos exposure from insulation, pipe covering, and cement products. Plaintiffs buttressed Gallagher's deposition testimony with the live testimony of Andrew Youngbar, who worked with Gallagher at Bethlehem Steel for about fourteen years. Gallagher served as

Youngbar's direct supervisor for a year, and the two men worked together regularly until Gallagher retired. Youngbar described

2

Gallagher as a "hands-on supervisor." On direct examination, Youngbar identified Crane gaskets and packing as common work materials that were placed in the "bonnet" of a valve. These products arrived at the plant in the

manufacturer's packaging, along with literature discussing their content and purpose. From these enclosures, Youngbar learned that And beyond the printed words,

the products contained asbestos.

Youngbar recalled the "snow storm" of particles created when a gasket was removed. Much of Youngbar's testimony focused on whether and to what extent he witnessed Gallagher working specifically with Crane products. He was sure that Gallagher had manipulated packing He also defense

products because "[h]e taught [Youngbar] to use it." recalled Gallagher making and removing gaskets.2 At

counsel's prodding on cross-examination, however, Youngbar could not remember a specific instance when Gallagher used a Crane gasket or packing product. To him, the products of the various

manufacturers were "interchangeable," and he could only say that Gallagher used asbestos products regularly. Along with setting out Gallagher's exposure history,

plaintiffs sought to establish the dangerousness of the asbestos

Apparently, Youngbar's identification at trial of Crane gaskets as a source of asbestos exposure was new; in earlier deposition testimony, he had not mentioned such products. Defense counsel moved to strike his testimony, alleging that he identified the gaskets only after hearing Gallagher's taped testimony. The court, although "troubled" by the new testimony, allowed it to stand with the understanding that defense counsel could challenge its weight before the jury.

2

3

products.

First, William Longo, Ph.D., testified as an expert in He studied Crane

the evaluation of asbestos-containing materials.

gaskets and determined them to contain between sixty and seventy percent chrysotile asbestos.3 Second, James Millette, Ph.D.,

testified as an expert in environmental science, microscopy, and the identification and quantification of asbestos fibers. He also

studied a certain type of Crane gasket and determined it to contain about eighty percent chrysotile asbestos. Dr. Millette offered

more complete testimony than Dr. Longo, because besides testing the asbestos content of Crane gaskets, he had studied the amount of asbestos fiber emitted into the air when workers used those gaskets in the course of routine pipe fitting. Both experts supplemented

their complicated testimonials with videotaped demonstrations. The third spoke in Gallagher's wheel of a case was medical evidence as to how his asbestos exposure harmed him. Collectively, three doctors, Samuel Hammer, M.D.; Arnold Brody, Ph.D.; and Edward Gabrielson, M.D.; explained the cause and effect relationship between asbestos and mesothelioma. They described the different

types of asbestos, its chemical properties, the difference between occupational and environmental asbestos exposure, how mesothelioma develops, and the latent versus active phases of the disease. Two

other doctors, Ronald Dodson, Ph.D., and Laura Welch, M.D., spoke

There are three types of asbestos fibers: Crocidolite, amosite, and chrysotile. All three cause mesothelioma, but crocidolite fibers are most potent, and chrysotile are least potent.

3

4

more specifically to Gallagher's disease history.

All the experts

shared the opinion that Gallagher's exposure to asbestos caused the onset of his mesothelioma, which, in turn, caused his death. The defense put forward two medical witnesses, James Crapo, M.D., and Andrew Churg, M.D., who testified primarily as to the onset of Gallagher's mesothelioma. Establishing the timing of the

disease was important for determining whether Maryland's statutory cap on non-economic damages applied. Before trial, the Gallagher plaintiffs settled their direct claims with all the defendants originally listed in the complaint, except Crane. Plaintiffs settled their claims with Garlock and

Anchor with "pro-tanto" releases, which meant that any award that they achieved would be reduced by the amount of consideration paid for the releases

Download Garlock v. Gallagher.pdf

Maryland Law