Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1489 September Term, 1999

HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE COMPANY, ET AL.

v. CHARLES M. P. CONNOR

Thieme, Kenney, Getty, James S. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Thieme, J.

Filed: December 28, 2000

A

jury

in

the

Circuit P.

Court

for

Baltimore million

City

awarded for

appellee,

Charles

M.

Connor,

$2.225

dollars

damages resulting from mesothelioma induced from the asbestos in Kent cigarettes; appellee died two months later. Hollingsworth & Vose Company ("H&V") and Appellants, Tobacco

Lorillard

Company ("Lorillard"), promptly appealed from that judgment, and present the following questions, which we have rephrased,

renumbered, and consolidated for clarity: 1. Did the trial court err, as a matter of law, in denying H&V's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, because of the lack of contracts of H&V and its subsidiary with the State of Maryland. Did the trial court err, as a matter of law, by instructing the jury that it could not consider plaintiff's exposure to the asbestos-containing products of non-parties? Did the trial court err, as a matter of law, by instructing the jury that H&V and Lorillard had a post-sale continuing duty to warn about the potential danger of a perishable consumer product? Did the trial court err, as a matter of law, by refusing to include a state of the art instruction on the jury verdict form? Did the trial court err in allowing Dr. Dement to testify concerning the work of Dr. Longo, because such testimony lacked foundation and was both hearsay and deficient, and further err in allowing Dr. Dement to offer opinions

2.

3.

4.

5.

outside his area of expertise based on this improperly admitted evidence? 6. Did the trial court err in both its instructions and special verdict form with respect to application of the Cap Statute and, furthermore, err in denying the defendants' post-trial motion with respect to the issue? Did the trial court err in denying defendants' motion for judgment and/or for new trial, when plaintiff had produced insufficient evidence that the original Kent filter caused his disease? Did the trial court err in denying defendants' post-trial motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to exhume plaintiff's body? Did the trial court err in defendants' post-trial motion appropriate credits under the Act? denying seeking Uniform

7.

8.

9.

We answer "yes" to question 1, remand as to questions 6 and 9, and answer "no" to questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. explain. Facts Appellee was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June of 1997 and died as a result of this disease on July 3, 1999. Testimony We

adduced that appellee's mesothelioma was induced by his exposure to asbestos, although there was divergence as to whether his mesothelioma was caused by the asbestos contained in Kent

cigarettes or the occupational asbestos to which he had been 2

subjected. that

Appellee initially sued 27 "occupational defendants" distributed, or installed asbestos and/or

manufactured,

asbestos-containing industrial or commercial products. alleged that he contracted to while mesothelioma and as an because

Appellee he was

occupationally products for 25

exposed years

asbestos working

asbestos-containing assembly man and

electronics technician at an aircraft manufacturing facility. Appellee appellants, later amended that his complaint to include was both also

contending

his

mesothelioma

substantially induced due to smoking Kent cigarettes from 1952 through 1956, at a time when these cigarettes contained

crocidolite asbestos as one of the components in their filters. Lorillard manufactured and distributed the Kent brand

cigarettes, and H&V manufactured the crocidolite asbestos filter used in the Kent cigarettes. defendants remained. When trial commenced, only four

During jury deliberations, the last two

"occupational defendants" settled with plaintiff; thus, H&V and Lorillard were the only remaining defendants. Subsequently, the

jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against H&V and Lorillard in the amount of $2.225 million, with $225,000 representing medical expenses and $2 million representing noneconomic followed. damages. Final judgment was entered; this appeal

3

I

Personal Jurisdiction over H&V Discussion

H&V

contends

that

the

trial

court

erred

by

denying

its

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

It argues

that the State of Maryland lacks personal jurisdiction because it is a non-resident defendant, and jurisdiction cannot be

achieved under Maryland's long-arm statute. H&V is not a Maryland corporation; it was incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and its principal place of business is in that state. Thus, in order for a

Maryland court to assert personal jurisdiction over H&V, it must do so through Md. Code (1973, 1998 Repl. Vol., 2000 Cum Supp.),

Download Hollingsworth v. Connor.pdf

Maryland Law