Using Deposition Testimony to Secure Summary Judgment
In asbestos products liability matters, motions for summary judgment are a standard part of case workup. Although summary judgment is an extreme measure that’s rarely granted, a recent Cook County case (Paul Enright, Special Administrator of the Estate of Susan Enright v. A.O. Smith Corp., et al.) demonstrates it is possible.
Summary judgment motions focus on case-specific facts and often rely on deposition testimony from the plaintiff and fact witnesses. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the defense in Enright argued that plaintiff had not met her evidentiary burden and thus the case should be dismissed. The motion highlights how asking the right deposition questions can make or break a summary judgment argument.
In Enright, Decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos through take-home exposure from the work her son, William, performed or was around while they lived together. In his deposition, William did not identify any of defendant’s product. In fact, plaintiff stipulated that William would offer no testimony regarding defendant.
Williams’ boss, James, was also deposed. James identified defendant’s product by name, described it as one of 13 brands of industrial boilers, and generally discussed the work that would have been performed on and around these boilers. However, he testified he never saw William around defendant’s products during the years they worked together.
In response to defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff pointed to James’ testimony about the work performed at the various jobsites where he was with William. Defendant’s reply focused on James’ testimony that he did not recall any location where defendant’s products were located when William was with him.
The court granted defendant’s motion based on the fact that no testimony placed William at a specific site where he was allegedly exposed to defendant’s product. The judge seemed to rely on both the son’s lack of identification of defendant’s product and James’ express testimony that he didn’t see William at any jobsite where defendant’s product was present. Noting that summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the judge nevertheless stated it was warranted here because plaintiff failed to meet her evidentiary burden.
Conclusion
Summary Judgment is an extreme measure that requires a strong argument to win. This ruling illustrates for defendants the importance of focusing on details during deposition questioning. If defendant hadn’t asked specific questions about the work James actually saw William around, as well as the specific location and product at issue, summary judgment likely would not have been granted.
Although each case has its own facts that need to be explored, these facts and small details about them can be the determining factors in dispositive motion arguments.