text:
Wrongful Death
Personal Injury
Overtime Claims
Dog Attacks
Car Accidents
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
Defendant and Appellant.
(San Francisco County
Super. Ct. No. 438144)
Defendant Asbestos Corporation, Limited,
("ACL") appeals a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Joseph
and Mary Garza on their complaint for damages for personal injury and
loss of consortium filed after Joseph contracted asbestosis. We affirm.
Procedural Background
On January 26, 2005, plaintiffs filed their
complaint for personal injury and loss of consortium alleging that
Joseph's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products
caused him severe and permanent lung damage, as well as increased risk
and fear of developing mesothelioma and lung cancer. According to the complaint, Joseph was
diagnosed with asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease in May
2004. The complaint included
causes of action for negligence and strict liability.
ACL filed an answer to the complaint on February
22, 2006, including notice of its request for trial by jury pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure, section 631.
ACL denied the allegations of the
complaint and listed various "affirmative defenses," including
one stating that "because all sales by this answering defendant
were F.O.B. Quebec, Canada, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
this defendant." On June 14,
2006, ACL appeared at a pre-trial conference, after which the court
continued the matter to June 19 and ordered parties to file any motions
in limine by that date.
One of ACL's various motions in limine filed
on June 15, 2006, was styled:
"Defendant Asbestos Corporation Ltd.'s Motion in Limine to preclude the exercise
of personal jurisdiction (Motion in Limine No. 1)." ACL argued it was a Quebec
company that had not consented to jurisdiction, was not physically
present in California,
and lacked sufficient contact with the state for the court to assume
either general or limited jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs opposed the motion,
asserting among other things that ACL had consented to jurisdiction by
making a general appearance. On
June 20, 2006, the trial court denied without comment ACL's motion
in limine regarding personal jurisdiction.
The jury heard opening statements from counsel on
June 23, 2006. The trial court
instructed the jury under California
law on theories of negligence as well as strict liability based on both
defective design and failure to warn.
The trial court also instructed the jury on economic, non-economic
and punitive damages. Counsel
delivered closing arguments on the morning of July 6, 2006. The following morning the jury returned
a special verdict in favor of plaintiffs on all allegations. The jury found that ACL sold a product
that did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have
expected, that the use was both reasonably foreseeable and a substantial
factor in causing injury to Joseph Garza, and that the risks of its use
were known or knowable to ACL at the time it sold the asbestos. The jury also found that ACL failed to
adequately warn about the risks of asbestos fibers and that ordinary
consumers would not have recognized those potential risks. The jury also found that ACL negligent
and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to
Joseph Garza.
The jury awarded damages to Joseph Garza as
follows: $127,294 in past and
$325,000 in future medical expenses; $66,700 in future lost earning
capacity; $21,000 in past and $139,000 in future loss of household
services; and $500,000 in non-economic damages. The jury also determined that Mary
Garza suffered damages in the amount of $400,000 for loss of consortium. The jury allocated 75% of liability to
ACL and 25% to all others, and also found by clear and convincing
evidence that ACL acted with malice or oppression. Based on the jury's finding of
malice, the trial proceeded to a separate phase on punitive damages. At the conclusion of the punitive
damages phase, the jury returned a verdict of $10 million in punitive
damages. On December 4, 2006, the
trial court denied ACL's motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict and its motion for a new trial on the grounds they "lack[]
substantive merit." ACL
filed a notice of appeal on December 4, 2006, stating it appealed
"the judgment filed and entered on August 8, 2005." On January 10, 2007, ACL filed its
Amended Notice of Appeal from Judgment and Post-Judgment Orders to
include appeal not only from the judgment but also from the orders
denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its
motion for new trial.
Factual Background
Evidence adduced at trial concerning Joseph
Garza's asbestos-related disease and ACL's asbestos product
was as follows: Joseph Garza testified
that he was born in Mercedes, Texas, in August 1930, and lived in the Rio Grande Valley until he was 17 years
old. Garza joined the U.S. Navy
when he was almost 18 years old, and after boot camp training he was
posted to the aircraft carrier USS Antietam. Onboard the Antietam,
Garza was assigned as a fireman apprentice. After a short spell on the Antietam,
Garza was assigned to the troop carrier and cargo ship, USS Randall,
which was undergoing repairs at Hunters Point shipyard in San Francisco. Garza served as fireman first class on
board the Randall for about 18 months and then was promoted to the rank
of boiler man, third class petty officer.
Garza served on the Randall for five or six years and attained the
rank of petty officer second class.
The insulation in the boiler rooms was in poor condition when
Garza arrived on board the Randall, and required a lot of repair work to
get the boilers back into top shape.
This entailed lagging the pipes and sealing the joints and flanges
where lagging could not be applied with a type of adhesive cement. The cement material came either in
buckets premixed, or in bags which had to be mixed, and it was applied by
hand with a putty knife or trowel.
The material in the bags was mixed with water in a 5-gallon bucket
by hand using a stick or whatever else was handy. There was always dust thrown up when
the bags were opened and emptied into the bucket. The dust got on Garza's clothing
and into his hair. He was never
given any respiratory protection while doing this work. Garza and his crewmates wore their
dust-covered clothing back in their berthing compartment and sometimes
wore the same clothes on multiple shifts.
After any repair to the piping insulation, Garza and his crewmates
cleaned up insulation debris using brooms and foxtails and there was
always dust in the air while they were doing this. After Garza left the Randell in about
1955, he went to the destroyer USS Agerholm. He worked on board the Agerholm as
boiler man second class for about eighteen months. Garza was in charge of number 2 boiler
room, with a crew of about a dozen seamen. The work he did on board the Agerholm
was similar to what he did on the Randall, working with piping insulation
and adhesive cements. Conditions
were more cramped on the Agerholm and ventilation was much poorer. Garza never wore respiratory protection
on board the Agerholm and as on the Randall, his clothes and hair would
get covered in dust from the materials and debris he worked with. Garza identified a product known as
Eagle-Pitcher Super 66, which he used all the time for insulation repairs
aboard the Randall and the Agerholm.
Each boiler room on the ships always had at least a bag of Super
66 available.
After Garza left the Navy in 1957, he worked for Westinghouse
between 1957 and 1973. He started
with the company testing hydraulic and hydrostatic components and the
integrity of materials for use in turbines and other marine equipment. About six times per year, Garza would
have to assemble the steam lines for testing equipment and during this
process the insulation on the pipes was disturbed and gave off dust. At Westinghouse, as well as in the
Navy, Garza worked with another type of insulation called rope packing, a
fiber material that looks like rope which can be used wet or dry to
insulate hard to reach areas.
Packing pullers, a corkscrew-type implement, was used to remove
rope packing, which sometimes came out in pieces. Garza never wore respiratory protection
at Westinghouse. After Garza left
Westinghouse in 1973, he had various jobs involving contact with
insulation materials until he retired in 1993 at age 63. These included spells with Basapan at
Moffet Field as a boiler operator, where he handled the same type of
insulation materials he worked with on the ships and also refurbished
boilers completely, which involved tearing out brick, mortar, and
insulation blocks from inside the boiler firebox, a small 5-foot by
7-foot area. In 1978 the family
moved to Willits, and after that Garza worked as a maintenance mechanic
for Microphor, where he hung drywall and sanded drywall compound in a
project. From around 1980-81 to
about 1900-1991 he commuted weekly to the Bay Area to work for Varian
Associates in Palo Alto as a building maintenance mechanic. Varian manufactured electron
tubes. At Varian, he may have been
exposed to asbestos while working in the attic among the insulated
pipes. These pipes were
deteriorating and giving off dust until Varian had a company
"encapsulate" the insulation by spraying it with
adhesive. For about six months
while he was with Varian, Garza held a second job as a maintenance
mechanic with Certainteed, a company that made fiber cement pipes. On three occasions, Garza actually had
to go into the silos to repair the augers, where he worked "up to
his knees" in fiber of some sort.
Between his retirement in 1993 and 2000, Garza
spent his time working around the house and gardening. In 2000, Garza and his wife move from Willits, California,
to Colorado
to be near their daughter and her husband, and "enjoy life out
there in the mountains."
When he first moved to Colorado,
Garza was not experiencing any breathing problems. His wife Mary was also very active and
did a lot of needlepoint and other home crafts Mary, however, developed health
problems: She had part of an
intestine removed, a cyst that had to be removed, then she developed
diabetes and began to lose the use of her legs. For the last few years, Mary has been
almost completely dependent on Garza for her daily needs.
Garza first had serious trouble breathing in
2003. Dr. Peter Holt ordered
x-rays and blood tests before diagnosing Garza with asbestosis. Before that time, Garza had always been
healthy, had never been hospitalized or had surgery, and had "never
been down because of sickness other than having a slight cold or cough of
that nature." Since he was
diagnosed with asbestosis, Garza has been taking a series of medications,
including steroids, to help him breath as well as pain killers for pain
in the left lower quadrant of his lung.
At first, Garza took a mild pain killer but the dosage has
increased over time. Garza also
takes a mild tranquilizer "to take the edge off" when he gets
upset about not being able to do things he's always done, like gardening,
mowing the lawn, and playing with his grandkids. For over two years, Garza has been
using an oxygen unit to assist his breathing. Now, Garza said he can walk only about
half a block, can't do even small things without getting exhausted,
and his view of the future is "bleak." His condition is irreversible and what
worries him most is his decreasing ability to take care of his wife and
he worries who'll look after her when he's gone. He and his wife have talked about that
and his wife is concerned and worries about what is going to happen. Garza agreed with an estimate that put
him at 65% disabled in February 2005, increasing to 80% disabled
The deposition testimony of Robert Bockstahler,
deceased, was read to the jury.
Bockstahler's deposition was taken on November 2, 1995, in
the San Francisco
actions. Bockstahler worked for
Eagle-Pitcher Industries of Cincinnati, Ohio, from October 1955 until
July 1991, when he took early retirement from his position as Director of
Claims after the firm went into bankruptcy. In December 1966, Bockstahler became
the general sales manager for the unit of the company that sold
industrial insulation products. In
that capacity, Bockstahler was familiar with the manufacturing process
for asbestos containing cement. In
1971, Bockstahler was appointed general manager of a new arm of the
company known as chemicals and
fibers division, which included the insulation plant in Joplin, Missouri. In that capacity, he oversaw division
operations in research, production and marketing, including the
asbestos-containing insulation products that were eliminated in August
1971. In the fall of 1981, he was
relocated back to Cincinnati
and served there until December 1987 as litigation assistant to the
general counsel. In that capacity,
he served as the company fact witness in litigation matters.
Bockstahler prepared a document around 1982 to show
the amounts of chrysotile asbestos used by Eagle-Pitcher in its
production processes and the suppliers of that asbestos. Bockstahler prepared the document from
cost of production records found in the accounting department at the Joplin plant in Missouri. The cost of production records show the
weight and amount of each ingredient for each product and are intended by
the plant accountant to establish total cost not including overhead. Bockstahler stated that Asbestos
Corporation Limited ("ACL") was the sole supplier of
chrysotile asbestos fiber to Eagle-Pitcher between 1935 and 1957. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the amount
of asbestos supplied by ACL to Eagle-Pitcher peaked at 1227 tons in the
war-year of 1943, falling to 662 tons in 1956. Bockstahler stated that the processed
asbestos supplied by ACL was used primarily in the manufacture of
insulating cements. In fact, 95%
of the asbestos was used in the manufacture of Eagle-Pitcher's
"Cadillac" product, its Eagle Super 66 insulating cement.
A. Personal Jurisdiction
ACL contends the trial court lacked personal
jurisdiction. ACL's argument
goes as follows: Plaintiffs
asserted in its complaint that ACL is jurisdictionally present in
California; plaintiffs' jurisdictional assertion was denied by ACL
in its answer, thereby preserving ACL's "jurisdictional
defense"; in a motion in limine filed before trial, ACL moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction; having so moved,
the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to present evidence demonstrating
that ACL is present in California for jurisdictional purposes, citing Thomas J. Palmer, Inc. v. Turkiye Is
Bankasi A.S. (1980) 105
Cal.App.3d 135 and Sheard v.
Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207; plaintiffs failed to come
forward with any such documentary evidence, ergo, the trial court should
have dismissed the complaint against ACL.
This argument is without merit.
It is true that "[w]here a defendant properly
moves to quash out-of-state service for lack of jurisdiction, 'the
burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.' (Citation.)" (Thomas
J. Palmer, Inc. v. Turkiye Is Bankasi A.S., supra, 105 Cal.App.3d at
p. 146.) In this case,
though, plaintiffs never had the burden of proof to show jurisdiction,
because ACL never properly moved to quash service for lack of
jurisdiction. Instead, ACL filed
an answer and attended a pre-trial settlement conference before
submitting a motion in limine purporting to challenge personal
jurisdiction. However, "it
has long been the rule in California
that a party waives any objection to the court's exercise of
personal jurisdiction when the party makes a general appearance in the
action. (See 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Jurisdiction, § 190,
p. 756.) An answer, of course, is such an appearance, as is
expressly made clear by section 1014: 'A defendant appears in an
action when the defendant answers, demurs, [or] files a notice of motion
to strike.' " (Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 337, 341 (Roy)
[noting in addition that even a defendant "who has not yet answered
has been held to have made a general appearance ― that is, to have
conceded the jurisdiction of the court ― if he invokes the
authority of the court on his behalf, or affirmatively seeks
Nor was this longstanding rule of California law altered by 2002
amendments to section 418.10, which governs the procedure for making a
motion to quash service or dismiss or stay an action on the basis of lack
of jurisdiction or inconvenient forum.
(See § 418.10.) As the
court in Roy
concluded: "The statute
continues to prescribe the motion to quash as the means of challenging
personal jurisdiction and does not in any way imply the existence of an
alternative. The defendant may
move to quash and simultaneously file an answer containing affirmative
defenses, but the latter is not a substitute for the former. The answer remains solely the vehicle
by which a defendant may assert defenses to the action, not to
jurisdiction. (Citation.)" (Roy,
supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 345.) Accordingly, by filing an answer and
litigating the case to trial, ACL made a general appearance and submitted
voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the court.
In Arena v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation
(Arena) (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1178, Division One of this Court
upheld a judgment against two asbestos suppliers, one of which was ACL,
concluding among other things that raw asbestos is a product that may
have a design defect, and that strict liability can apply to the supplier
of a defective raw material. (See
generally Arena, supra.)
ACL submits that Arena was "wrongly decided"
because: (1) the court erred
by holding that a raw material could be defectively designed;
(2) the court erred by holding that the consumer-expectations test
applied to a raw material like asbestos; (3) the decision is
"inconsistent" with case law governing the liability of bulk
suppliers of raw materials to users of end products manufactured by
others. ACL further asserts that
the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs only because it was
erroneously instructed under Arena, supra. ACL contends that we should
"revisit" Arena, overrule it, and hold that a supplier
of raw asbestos is under no duty to provide warnings. Having done that, ACL asserts that we
should then reverse the jury's finding of liability against ACL and
dismiss "the plaintiffs' complaint as asserted against
We decline ACL's invitation to
"revisit" and "overrule" Arena.
ACL simply offers us the same arguments
that it presented to the court in Arena. All were rejected by the Arena court
in its 1998 decision, and ACL points to no Court of Appeal decision since
then disagreeing with the central tenets of Arena. Rather, ACL submits that Arena
was "wrongly decided."
First, ACL contends that the Arena court
erred by holding that raw asbestos could be defectively
"designed" because asbestos is "a natural immutable
mineral" which does not "fit the analytical mold of
products-liability principles."
To the contrary, Arena held that strict liability applies
to suppliers of raw asbestos because "incorporating raw asbestos
into an insulation product does not substantially alter" the
asbestos, and because strict liability is not "restricted to
processed products." (Arena, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 1188-1189.) In this regard Arena is entirely consistent
with the principles of California strict
liability law governing the liability of component manufacturers, and ACL
cites no California
law to the contrary. (Cf. Jimenez
v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 479-480 [noting that,
"For purposes of strict products liability, there are 'no
meaningful distinctions between, on the one hand, component manufacturers
and suppliers and, on the other hand, manufacturers and distributors of
complete products; for both groups, the 'overriding policy
considerations are the same.' (Citation.)"].)
Second, ACL contends that the Arena court
erred by applying the consumer-expectations test to a raw material. ACL criticizes the Arena court
for extending the holdings of Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
(1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 461 and Morton v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
1529—applying the consumer-expectations test to finished
products—to a raw material like asbestos. In this regard, ACL asserts that
"raw asbestos is no more 'designed' than is sodium
. . . [or] lead," and asks rhetorically whether a company
that provides chlorine gas should be held liable if a manufacturer uses
it to produce defective bleach.
In Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th
990, a panel of this Division agreed with the Arena court that
" '[t]he consumer expectations test asks if the
reasonable minimum safety expectations of the product's ordinary
consumers were violated.' " (Id. at p. 1001,
citing Arena, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1185.) And the Arena court specifically
rejected ACL's "chlorine" analogy as a bar to the
application of the consumer-expectations test to a product like
asbestos. The court stated: "In Jenkins v. T&N PLC [1996] 45 Cal.App.4th 1224, the court
noted that raw asbestos fibers do not change when they become a component
part of another asbestos product.
This fact alone distinguishes asbestos from the sulfuric acid
supplier's drain cleaning product in Walker. When used by defendant's tenant,
the product exploded, injuring the plaintiff. (Walker
v. Stauffer Chemical Corp., supra, 19 Cal.App.3d 669, 671.) The Walker
court expressly stated: 'The compounding [of the drain cleaning
product] entailed a change in the physical composition of the bulk acid
calculated to render it suitable as a household product. The bulk sulfuric acid was
substantially altered, not only as to its chemical composition, but as to
the container form in which it was distributed.' (Citation.) For
this reason, Walker
refused to extend strict liability to the producer of a product that had
been substantially changed. (Citation.) Walker
belongs in the group of cases that involve nondefective raw materials or components supplied by the
so-called upstream suppliers who have no control over alterations by the
manufacturer of the final product. (Citations.) Walker does not provide the rule in
this case because incorporating raw
asbestos into an insulation product does not substantially alter
ACL's product." (Arena, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1188.) We see no flaw in
the Arena court's
Third, ACL contends that the Arena decision is "inconsistent" with case law
governing the liability of bulk suppliers of raw materials to users of
end products manufactured by others.
ACL asserts that under this case law bulk suppliers of raw
materials are not liable for end products manufactured by others and that
"the duty to properly design, manufacture and test a product, and
ultimately to provide appropriate warnings, is the responsibility of the
manufacturer, not the supplier of the raw material
On this point, ACL merely recycles the argument it
made ante, because Arena acknowledged and approved
those cases holding that a raw material supplier is not liable under strict liability where its raw material has been substantially altered during
the manufacturing process of a finished product. (See Arena, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1188-1189.) Indeed, the principal California case relied upon by ACL is Walker v. Stauffer Chemical (1971)
19 Cal.App.3d 669. But as noted
above, the Arena case
specifically and logically distinguished Walker
because the bulk raw material in that case—sulphuric acid—was
substantially altered by the manufacturer to produce the drain cleaning
product that injured plaintiff. (Arena, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d at
p. 1188.) In contrast,
"incorporating raw asbestos into an insulation product does not
substantially alter" the asbestos.
ACL, however, asserts that Walker
was followed by Groll v. Shell Oil
(1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 444 (Groll),
a case that predates and was not mentioned in Arena, supra. In Groll, the sixteen year old
plaintiff was injured in an explosion when he attempted to use a can of
Park Ranger Stove and Lantern Fuel (BT-67) to light a wood burning
fireplace in the bedroom of his residence. Through his guardian ad litem,
plaintiff sued for damages against Chase Chemical (Chase), the
distributor, Sports, Ltd., the distributor sales company, and the manufacturer
of BT-67, Shell Oil Company.
Plaintiff settled with Chase and Sports, Ltd., and proceeded to
trial against Shell Oil. At the
conclusion of plaintiff's case, the trial court granted Shell
Oil's motion for nonsuit on the ground that it did not owe or
breach a duty to plaintiff. (Groll,
supra, 148 Cal.App.3d at pp. 446-447.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed on two grounds. First, regarding the adequacy of the
warnings Shell Oil and Chase provided with the BT-67, the court noted
that "[a]ppellant had the burden of proving that the product was
defective and that the defect was a proximate cause of his injuries. (Citation.) [Shell Oil's] data sheet warned
Chase regarding the dangerous propensities of BT-67 and specifically
advised avoiding 'excessive heat,' 'open flame,'
and 'spark sources.'
Chase warned appellant that BT-67 was 'extremely
flammable' and should be kept away from 'heat' and
'open flame[s].' Thus appellant was injured, not as a result
of inadequate warnings by [Shell Oil] or Chase, but rather, as a
consequence of his own improper use of the product. After reading the label, appellant
should have known that BT-67 should not be used to start a wood burning
fire." (Groll, supra, 148 Cal.App.3d at p. 448.) Similarly, the court noted that a manufacturer's
liability to the ultimate consumer may be extinguished by
"intervening cause" where the manufacturer either provides
adequate warnings to a middleman or the middleman alters the product
before passing it to the final consumer.
(Id. at pp. 448-449.) Thus, the court concluded that since
Shell Oil "manufactured and sold BT-67 in bulk, its responsibility
must be absolved at such time as it provides adequate warnings to the
distributor who subsequently packages, labels and markets the
product." (Id. at p. 449.) This case is thus diametrically opposed
to Groll because there is no
evidence that ACL provided warnings to its purchasers of asbestos within
the relevant time frame, either on the 100-pound bags in which it was
shipped or on any safety data materials shipped with the product as in Groll, supra.
Finally, just as it did in Arena, ACL relies on "out-of-state cases and [a comment
in] a proposed draft of the Restatement Third of torts" (Arena,
supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1188.) We need not discuss each of these
out-of-state cases in detail. Most
of them are inapposite because they involve application of the
"bulk supplier defense" to suppliers of "unavoidably
unsafe" products where those products are supplied in bulk to
intermediaries either accompanied by proper directions and warnings or to
sophisticated intermediaries who by training, experience, and instruction
are familiar with the risks inherent in the use of the product. (See Purvis v. PPG Industries, Inc. (Ala. 1987) 502 So.2d 714, 718; Rivers v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.
(N.Y.Sup.,1990) 554 N.Y.S.2d 401, 404; Sara Lee Corp. v. Homasote Co. (D.Md.,1989) 719 F.Supp. 417,
422-423.) Here by contrast, ACL
was not a bulk supplier and there is no evidence either that ACL provided
adequate warnings to its purchasers or that the purchaser identified in
this case, Eagle-Pitcher, was aware of the dangers of asbestos. Last, to the extent that Cimino et al. v. Raymark Industries, Inc. et al. (C.A.5 1998) 151 F.3d 297, 331
["ordinary raw asbestos sold to a sophisticated and knowledgeable
manufacturer of such products is not of itself defective or unreasonably
dangerous" (applying Texas
law)], conflicts with Arena, supra,
we decline to follow it.
C. Damages
ACL contends the damages awards must be set aside
because there was insufficient evidence of malice to support punitive
damages, and because there was insufficient evidence to support Mary
Garza's claim for loss of consortium. Additionally, ACL contends that, even
if there was sufficient evidence to support punitive damages and damages
for loss of consortium, the amount of the award in each case was
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence for
In any challenge to a judgment based on the
sufficiency of the evidence, "we must consider all of the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the
benefit of every reasonable inference, and resolving conflicts in support
of the judgment. (Citations.)
[¶] It is not our task to weigh conflicts and disputes in the
evidence; that is the province of the trier of fact. Our authority begins and ends with a
determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is any substantial evidence,
contradicted or uncontradicted, in support of the judgment. Even in cases where the evidence is
undisputed or uncontradicted, if two or more different inferences can
reasonably be drawn from the evidence this court is without power to
substitute its own inferences or deductions for those of the trier of
fact, which must resolve such conflicting inferences in the absence of a
rule of law specifying the inference to be drawn. We must accept as true all evidence and
all reasonable inferences from the evidence tending to establish the
correctness of the trial court's findings and decision, resolving
every conflict in favor of the judgment. ( Citations.) [¶] We emphasize that the test is not the presence or absence of a
substantial conflict in the evidence.
Rather, it is simply whether there is substantial evidence in
favor of the respondent. If this
"substantial" evidence is present, no matter how slight it
may appear in comparison with the contradictory evidence, the judgment
must be upheld. As a general rule,
therefore, we will look only at the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the successful party, and disregard the contrary showing. (Citations.) In
short, even if the judgment of the trial court is against the weight of
the evidence, we are bound to uphold it so long as the record is free
from prejudicial error and the judgment is supported by evidence which is
'substantial, that is, of 'ponderable legal
significance,' 'reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid
value.' (Citations.)"
(Howard v. Owens Corning
(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621, 630-631.)
Regarding punitive damages, the jury was instructed
that if it decided that ACL's conduct harmed Joseph and Mary Garza,
then it should next decide whether ACL engaged in that conduct with
malice or oppression. The jury was
instructed that to obtain punitive damages plaintiffs had to show by
clear and convincing evidence that ACL's "conduct was
despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of the
rights and safety of another. A
person acts with knowing disregard when he or she is aware of the
probable dangerous consequences of is or her conduct and deliberately
fails to avoid those consequences."
ACL asserts plaintiffs failed to make that showing because the
only evidence offered in support of punitive damages was "an
eight-year-old response to an interrogatory, in an unrelated case, where
it was represented that ACL likely had an understanding of some
'association' between exposure to asbestos and disease in
human beings sometimes in the 1940s." Not so.
There was more.
Dr. Richard Cohen, a specialist in occupational
medicine, testified about his study of what was known historically
regarding the adverse health effects of asbestos. Dr. Cohen noted key articles and
studies tracing the emerging recognition of asbestos-related
disease. The first American article
was a book authored by Hoffman and issued by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics in 1918 that described a potentially fatal condition resulting
from scarring of the lungs caused by breathing asbestos dust. Hoffman noted that Canadian and
American asbestos workers were unable to get life insurance because of
the hazard of working with asbestos.
A 1924 medical article by a British pathologist, Dr. Cook,
established asbestos as the cause of the scarring disease in the
lungs. In 1928, an article in the Journal
of the American Medical Association carried an editorial called
"Pulmonary Asbestosis" stating that asbestos dust causes
asbestosis. In 1930,
Dr. Merewether studies workers in a textile factory in England
producing asbestos cloth and found that those workers with the greatest
exposure to dust had the greatest likelihood of getting sick, and that
the disease progressed even after a victim stopped breathing the
dust. Merewether proposed
practices to reduce dust and educate workers to use respirators and gas
In 1931, an article entitled "The Very Least
an Employer Should Know About Dust and Fume Diseases" was published
by Dr. Frederick Willson in the Safety Engineering Journal. Dr. Willson stated it was known
that breathing in asbestos dust is seriously harmful. A 1934 study by Doctors Wood and Gloyne
of 100 asbestosis patients showed that the risk of the disease was not
confined to workers in asbestos mines or factories, but to workers in
other settings who inhale the dust.
A 1935 study by Dr. Fulton in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
to see if there was a safe level of asbestos dust workers could breath
cited well over a hundred articles about asbestosis. In 1935, Dr. Lynch identified a
link between the scarring of the lungs associated with asbestosis and
lung cancer. In 1937, the American
Association of Railroads recognized there was a health risk associated
with railroad workers breathing asbestos.
Around that time, a safety team at Standard Oil of New Jersey
wrote a book about the hazard of asbestos dust from pipe insulation in
oil refineries. Also,
Dr. Dreessen studied how much asbestos dust would be a safe exposure
for U.S.
workers and recommended 5 million particles per cubic foot. In 1941, a text book of occupational
disease by Reed listed different occupations at risk from asbestos
related diseases. In 1944, the
Journal of the American Medical Association carried an editorial on
environmental cancer and listed asbestos as a cancer-causing substance. In 1944, the U.S. Navy commissioned a
study by Dr. Fleischer of shipyard insulators that concluded
asbestos-related disease resulted from long-term exposure and dust should
be controlled. In 1949, the
Journal of American Medical Association published an editorial stating
asbestosis could lead to lung cancer and that not only workers in
asbestos manufacturing facilities, but also workers using asbestos
products, were at risk.
By the late 1940s and early 1950s information on
medical problems related to asbestos began to appear in non-medical
publications: In 1949, the New
York Times ran an article linking asbestos to cancer, and in 1952
Encyclopedia Britannica published that asbestos causes lung cancer. The study in 1964 by industrial
hygienist Marr of insulators in Naval shipyards measured airborne
asbestos levels and reported claims for asbestosis among the
insulators. And in 1964,
Dr. Selikoff from New York
found increased rates of lung cancer, mesothelioma and other cancers
among asbestos insulators. The
Selikoff study was reported widely in the media and publicized the
subject of asbestosis as an occupational health hazard. Finally, Dr. Cohen opined that it
was well understood as early as the 1930s that asbestos miners were at a
high risk of asbestos related disease.
Against this chronology of mounting medical
evidence and increasing public awareness of the link between exposure to
asbestos and lung disease, the jury was presented with the following
information about ACL. ACL was a
member of the following trade organizations—Asbestos Information
Association, the Asbestos Information Association of North America and
the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association.
ACL never conducted or commissioned any tests or studies on
ambient asbestos dust levels at any location or job site where asbestos-containing
products were installed, removed or utilized. ACL admitted that in the 1940s it was
aware there is an association between asbestos exposure and disease in
human beings. Kenneth Cohen,
plaintiffs' industrial hygienist expert, testified that he read a
1944 mining survey of the King Mine in Quebec owned by ACL to record dust
counts in the mine and the report not only advised ACL about the results
of the survey but referred ACL to literature about asbestos hazards. ACL marketed its 100-pound packages of
asbestos in porous jute bags until the late 1960s and did not place any
warnings on the bags of asbestos until January 1970. ACL's company brochures published
in 1956 and 1961 described extensively the nature and extent of the
company's asbestos operations, including the mining techniques
employed, the tonnages of asbestos extracted, the grades and types of
asbestos produced, the physical and chemical properties of asbestos, the
special characteristics of its asbestos fibers, and the types of products
for which its different grades of asbestos were suitable. The brochures, however, contain not a
single reference to any health risk associated with asbestos. In our view, ACL's belated action
in 1970 when it had known since at least the 1940s of the health risks
associated with its product, provides substantial evidence to a clear and
convincing standard that ACL acted with a willful and knowing disregard
of the safety of others and supports the jury's decision to award
punitive damages.
ACL contends that there was insufficient evidence
to support an award of damages to Mary Garza for loss of consortium. ACL asserts that because Mary Garza did
not testify in person "the award was based upon pure speculation"
that she actually suffered a loss of consortium. We disagree because the testimony of
Mary's husband Joseph provides substantial evidence for her loss of
consortium award.
" 'The concept of consortium
includes not only loss of support or services; it also embraces such
elements as love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, sexual
relations, the moral support each spouse gives the other through the
triumph and despair of life, and the deprivation of a spouse's
physical assistance in operating and maintaining the family home. [Citations.]'
(Citations.) Loss of consortium
'has been referred to as the loss of "the noneconomic aspects
of the marriage relation, including conjugal society, comfort, affection,
and companionship." [Citations.]' (Citation.)" (Boeken
v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1399.) Joseph testified about his wife's
current health problems. She had
part of an intestine removed, a cyst that had to be removed, then she
developed diabetes and began to lose the use of her legs. Joseph states that for the last few
years, Mary has been almost completely dependent on him for her daily
needs. He gives her all her
medications, cooks for her, assists her into shower, and helps her get
dressed. For over two years, Garza has been using an oxygen unit to
assist his breathing. Joseph
testified that his irreversible and deteriorating medical condition has
led to a decreasing ability on his part to take care of his wife. He stated that he worries who will take
care of her when he's gone, that he and his wife have talked about
this and his wife is concerned and worries about what is going to
happen. Joseph's testimony
constitutes substantial evidence supporting his wife Mary's loss of
2. The Level of Damages Awarded
Punitive Damages
Based on its finding of malice or oppression by
ACL, the jury awarded plaintiffs $10 million in punitive damages. ACL contends that the jury's
punitive damages award was both excessive and constitutionally disproportionate. We disagree. The punitive damages are $10 million
and compensatory damages, including loss of consortium, totaled almost
$1.58 million. The punitive award
is just over six times greater than the compensatory award. This falls well within the range of
single digit multipliers approved as constitutionally permissible by the
high court in State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell (State Farm) (2003) 538 U.S. 408 , 425 [noting that
"[s]ingle-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due
process, while still achieving the State's goals of deterrence and
retribution, than awards with" higher ratios].)
Moreover, the award is not excessive in light of
ACL's reprehensible conduct.
(See Boeken v. Philip
Morris, Inc. (Boeken)
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1689 [courts consider three factors is
assessing whether a punitive damages award is excessive: "(1) the reprehensibility of the acts of
the defendant in light of the record as a whole; (2) the amount of compensatory damages awarded; and
(3) the wealth of the
particular defendant"].)
Here, ACL intentionally marketed a defective product knowing that
it might cause injury and death.
Such conduct has been held to be "highly reprehensible,"
(see Romo v. Ford Motor Co.
(2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 738, 755 [highly reprehensible to place defective
1978-1979 model Ford Bronco in stream of commerce because it showed
"a reckless disregard of consumers' safety and
lives"]), and we agree.
Indeed, in State
Farm, supra, 538 U.S. 408, the high court identified several
subsidiary factors which guide the determination of the degree of
reprehensibility in assessing punitive damages: (1) whether
"the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic";
(2) whether "the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to
or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others";
(3) whether "the target of the conduct had financial
vulnerability"; (4) whether "the conduct involved
repeated actions or was an isolated incident"; and (5) whether
"the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or
deceit, or mere accident." (State Farm, supra, 538 U.S. at
p. 419.) The high court also
noted: "The existence of any
one of these factors weighing in favor of a plaintiff may not be
sufficient to sustain a punitive damages award; and the absence of all of
them renders any award suspect."
(Ibid.) The high court also stated that
" 'repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than an
individual instance of malfeasance' " and
" 'a recidivist may be punished more severely than a
first offender,' " so long as "the conduct in
question replicates the prior transgressions." (Id.
at p. 423.)
An analysis under the high court's State Farm factors validates our
conclusion that ACL's conduct was truly reprehensible because all
show a high degree of reprehensibility and weigh in favor of the
jury's conclusion that a substantial punitive damage award was
appropriate in this case. The
evidence supports the conclusion that plaintiffs' injuries were
caused by a ACL's defective asbestos, and that ACL vigorously marketed
asbestos throughout 1950s and 1960s with no warnings whatsoever and with
knowledge of the likely deleterious effects on the physical health of
vulnerable downstream users working with products containing its
asbestos, workers who were entirely unaware of the dangers posed by the
material they were handling. In
sum, having concluded that ACL's conduct is "extremely
reprehensible" (Romo v. Ford
Motor Co., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 755), and that there is
sufficient evidence supporting all five reprehensibility factors under State Farm, supra, 538 U.S. 408, a
substantial punitive damage award was justified.
ACL, however, asserts that that punitive damage
award was excessive because it was disproportionate to the value of the
company. (See Boeken, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1689 [one of the
factors considered on the proportionality of punitive damages is
"the wealth of the particular defendant"].) In particular, ACL relies on the Boeken court's observation
that "California
courts have routinely upheld punitive damage awards which amounted to a
percentage of net worth from .005 percent (citation), to 5 percent
(citation), and not exceeding 10 percent. (Citation)" (Boeken,
supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1697.) According to ACL, its balance sheet
showed a negative value of minus $21 million. Even under plaintiffs' market
capitalization method of valuation, ACL continues, the low estimate of
$13.8 million and the high estimate of $35 million represent punitive
awards of 77 percent and 28 percent of ACL's value, "well
beyond the ten percent ceiling recognized by the Boeken court."
However, it was not so clear from the evidence presented in the
punitive damages phase of the trial just what value ACL holds.
Indeed, the only testimony in the punitive phase
was the testimony of Dr. Barry Ben-Zion, an economist called by
plaintiffs to describe and explain to the jury the financial condition of
ACL. Ben-Zion told the jury that
ACL had not, as it claimed, sold its asbestos mines in 1986. Rather, ACL contributed the mines to a
partnership which operates the mines and retained part ownership in the
partnership. Ben-Zion stated he
based his financial assessment of ACL on publicly available documents and
had no deposition transcripts to review of any of the financial officers
of the company. The partnership to
which ACL contributed its mines is known as LAB & Company, Ltd.
(LAB). ACL owns a 22.5 percent
interest in LAB. ACL is a publicly
traded company on the Toronto Stock Exchange. LAB, however, is not publicly traded,
so the value of its assets cannot be determined from public
sources—that information could only be obtained from the
partnership entities and access to their financial records, and
plaintiffs had no such access.
Ben-Zion stated that as a publicly traded company,
ACL must file quarterly and annual balance sheets and income
statements. He explained that the
balance sheet lists the value of the company's assets and the
extent of the company's liabilities at a given point in time. The income statement, on the other
hand, shows revenues and expenses over a period of time. ACL is required to issue quarterly and
annual income statements. Ben-Zion
explained that for the first quarter of 2006, ACL showed revenue of $5.7
million and expenses of about $200,000, reporting a net profit of $5.5
million (Canadian), or $4.85 million (US). Regarding the balance sheet, Ben-Zion
explained that ACL employed book value accounting, whereby assets are
depreciated over time. Using this
method, ACL values its long term assets—land holdings, mines, and
equipment at zero. Ben-Zion also
noted that based on ACL's current share price of $5.50, the market
valuation of the company is currently at $13.8 million in U.S. dollars,
but the share price had fluctuated by a ratio of three times over the
past year and had gone as high as $12.50 per share. However, share price is determined by
the market's assessment of the company's likely future income
stream, which Ben-Zion said could not be predicted without having access
to information held by the corporate officers. Ben-Zion said he would want to know
what specific assets the company held and to know "if the
liabilities they list on their books are real because they seem a little
strange." Ben-Zion explained
that the liabilities "appear strange" because ACL lists some
$24 million in liabilities but their income statement shows the company
pays no interest on those liabilities.
He stated: "They say
it's liabilities to related companies, so maybe it's like
husband owing wife 24 million. Who
knows. I don't know. They don't tell us." The claimed liability of $24 million
reduces the company's net worth.
Yet ACL, Ben-Zion noted, has made no effort to reduce that debt
despite income of $5.5 million in the current quarter. As a marker for the true value of the
company, Ben-Zion noted that ACL admitted a net worth of $150 million
before the partnership was formed to operate the mines. The standard method of valuing
companies, he stated, is to capitalize future projected cash flow and
that in the U.S.
most companies sell for roughly 15 times their earnings. Ben-Zion stated that for ACL "we
don't have enough information to make a projection" regarding
the company's future stream of income, so "we wind up relying
on the market" even though "it's not the best because
we don't have the inside information and so we don't know how
to properly value it. So it could
be worth what the market thinks or it could be worth more than what the
market thinks but we don't know." Ben-Zion stated that without
information on the assets and liabilities of the LAB partnership,
"we don't know what 22 and a half percent of LAB is
worth." With the limited
information available to him, Ben-Zion opined that ACL "definitely
. . . ha[s] a positive value," which the market puts at
around $14 million (U.S.). Further, he opined that $14 million is
"the minimum value," that recent share prices would put it at
$35 million (U.S.) and that "it could be worth a lot more depending
on their future prospects" and the future prospects of ACL's
interest in the LAB partnership.
On cross-examination, Ben-Zion replied that
according to balance sheet information the book value of ACL's
assets was $3.8 million at the end of 2004 and $3.4 million at the end of
2005. In 2005, ACL reported
liabilities of $27 million, to the balance sheet showed a negative value
of $21 million (U.S.) ACL also reported a net income loss for
2004 and 2005. On redirect,
plaintiffs' counsel asked Ben-Zion about the financial statement he
had been asked to review on cross-examination. Ben-Zion stated it is a financial
statement prepared by ACL and audited by Price Waterhouse Coopers of Canada. Ben-Zion opined that as far as
understanding ACL's current condition in terms of "what assets
they have, where their liabilities lie," and whether the $27
million dollars reported on the balance sheet was a true liability,
"the best source of information" would be the directors who
signed off on the financial statement.
Ben-Zion agreed that if ACL's counsel "really wanted
to dispute what you had to say today, he should be bringing those people
in here to talk to the jury."
And he further explained that the $27 million is shown as payable
to "related companies," which he opined was a parent company—a
company that owns and directs another company—but "we have no
idea" who the parent company is and "we don't know the
assets of that company except it holds a note from the daughter company
[ACL] for $24 million for which it has not collected any interest. Ben-Zion agreed that "we have
absolutely zero financial information to assess" the assets of the
parent company, and stated that "we don't know whether the
parent company is publicly traded or privately held. We don't know."
In assessing whether, based upon the above
testimony, the jury acted from passion rather than reason in assessing
$10 million in punitive damages against ACL, we take particular note of
two jury instructions given to the jury in this case. The first states, "You may
consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence
when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the
weaker evidence." (See CACI
No. 203 [mirroring language in Evidence Code, § 412].) The second states, "You may
consider whether a party failed to explain or deny some unfavorable
evidence. Failure to explain or
deny unfavorable evidence may suggest that the evidence is true." (See CACI No. 205 [mirroring language
in Evidence Code, § 413].)
Here, ACL could have called on its financial officers to testify
about the assets, liabilities, past income, and anticipated future
revenue streams of the company.
Patently, such testimony would have provided much stronger and clarifying
evidence on such questions as: (1) the nature of the financial
relationship between ACL and its parent company, including the terms and
conditions of the $24 million note, and the identity, assets, and
liabilities of the parent company; (2) the market value as opposed to the
book value of ACL's long-term assets; (3) the value of the assets
held by the LAB partnership; and, (4) ACL's anticipated future
revenue streams and a company valuation based on that instead of the
market's current valuation of the share price. ACL could have presented evidence on
these questions but chose not to do so.
So plaintiffs filled the evidentiary void with the testimony of
Dr. Ben-Zion, whose testimony supports the unfavorable inference,
which the jury was entitled to draw in the face of ACL's failure to
present evidence to the contrary, that ACL's accounting practices
were questionable; that its liabilities were vastly overstated; that its
assets were grossly undervalued; and that it was now sheltering behind a
parent company under favorable financial terms, having divested its
mining operations to a non-public partnership for which no financial
information was available except that it continued to mine and sell
asbestos to provide income to ACL.
Indeed, the jury heard that in the first quarter of 2006, ACL had
a net income of almost $5 million (US). In sum, considering that the patchy and
limited nature of the financial evidence presented to the jury was due to
ACL itself, we conclude the jury's punitive damages determination
was not excessive, but rather a rational attempt to arrive at an
appropriate punishment for what we acknowledged above as ACL's
reprehensible conduct. (Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc, supra,
127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1689 [noting that "the purpose of
punitive damages is to punish wrongdoers and thereby deter the commission
of wrongful acts" and stating that "review of punitive damage
awards rendered at the trial level is guided by the historically honored
standard of reversing as excessive only those judgments which the entire
record, when viewed most favorable to the judgment, indicates were rendered as the result of passion and
prejudice. . . ." (Citation omitted)].)
(b) Damages for Loss of Consortium
ACL also contends that the jury's award of
$400,000 for loss of consortium was excessive. " 'The amount of damages is
a fact question, first committed to the discretion of the jury and next
to the discretion of the trial judge on a motion for new trial. They see and hear the witnesses and
frequently . . . see the injury and the impairment that has
resulted therefrom. . . .
The power of the appellate court differs materially from that of
the trial court in passing on this question. An appellate court can interfere on the
ground that the judgment is excessive only on the ground that the verdict
is so large that, at first blush, it shocks the conscience and suggests
passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury.'
(Citation.)" Furthermore,
" '[t]he reviewing court does not act de novo.
. . . [T]he trial court's determination of whether
damages were excessive "is entitled to great weight" because
it is bound by the "more demanding test of weighing conflicting
evidence than our standard of review under the substantial evidence rule
. . . ." [Citation.]
All presumptions favor the trial court's determination
[citation], and we review the record in the light most favorable to the
judgment [citation].' (Citation.) [¶] In reviewing a noneconomic
damage award "[t]here are no fixed or absolute standards by which
an appellate court can measure in monetary terms the extent of the
damages suffered by a plaintiff as a result of the wrongful act of the
defendant. The duty of an
appellate court is to uphold the jury and trial judge whenever possible. [Citation.] The amount to be awarded is 'a
matter on which there legitimately may be a wide difference of
opinion" [citation]. In considering the contention that the
damages are excessive the appellate court must determine every conflict
in the evidence in respondent's favor, and must give him [or her]
the benefit of every inference reasonably to be drawn from the record
[citation]. [¶] While the appellate court should consider the amounts
awarded in prior cases for similar injuries, obviously, each case must be
decided on its own facts and circumstances. Such examination demonstrates that such
awards vary greatly. [Citations.] Injuries are seldom identical and the
amount of pain and suffering involved in similar physical injuries varies
widely. These factors must be
(Citation.)" (Buell-Wilson et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al. (Mar. 10,
2008, Nos. D045154, D045579) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 349 at p. 16; WL 625016,
at pp. 14-15].)
Under these standards, we conclude the award of
$400,000 to Mary Garza for loss of consortium was reasonable. Joseph's injuries were
exceedingly grave and severely debilitating. His capacity to provide the care and
attention to his wife in her hour of greatest need was greatly
diminished. Moreover, the award
was not out of line with recent awards to spouses for loss of consortium
in asbestos-related cases. (See Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corp. (2007)
156 Cal.App.4th 92, 95 [awarding $1,605,619.32 to husband for his claims
and $300,000 to his wife for her loss of consortium claim]; Smith v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp.
(2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 [jury awarded husband economic damages
in the amount of $319,500, noneconomic damages in the amount of $2.5
million, and awarded spouse $1.5 million for loss of consortium]; Jones v. John Crane, Inc., supra,
132 Cal.App.4th at p. 997 [jury awarded husband economic damages of
$1,048,000, non-economic damages of $3.5 million, awarded spouse $500,000
for loss of consortium].)
Accordingly, we conclude that the jury's award of $400,000
for loss of consortium was not excessive.
D. Allocation of
ACL disputes the jury's allocation of fault
and contends that it should be reduced from 75% to "a percentage
that comports with the evidence presented, ranging from one percent to no
more than twenty percent of the total culpability." We decline to disturb the jury's
allocation of fault.
"The substantial evidence standard of review
also applies to the jury's findings on the issue of causation
(citation), and its allocation of fault among concurrent or alternative
tortfeasors (citations.)" (Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., supra,
32 Cal.App.4th at p. 476; see also Howard v. Owens-Corning, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 631
[even if judgment is against the weight of the evidence it must be
affirmed on appeal under substantial evidence standard "so long as
the record is free from prejudicial error and the judgment is supported
by evidence which is 'substantial, that is, of 'ponderable
legal significance,' 'reasonable in nature, credible, and of
solid value' "].)
ACL does not dispute that plaintiffs proved its
asbestos was more likely than not the source of the fibers that caused
Joseph's lung disease, i.e., that its asbestos was a legal cause of his
injuries—rather, ACL asserts that the jury's allocation of
75% fault to it was too high.
However, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
the jury's allocation of fault.
Bockstahler's testimony showed that ACL was
the sole supplier of chrysotile asbestos fiber to Eagle-Pitcher between
1935 and 1957, and that 95% of the processed asbestos supplied by ACL was
used in the manufacture of Eagle-Pitcher's "Cadillac"
product — its Eagle Super 66 insulating cement. Charles Ay, an asbestos detection
specialist and consultant, testified for plaintiffs. He stated that Eagle-Pitcher's
Super 66 high-temperature, insulating cement was "the best product
on the market" in the '40s, '50s and '60s and was
the most commonly used asbestos-containing product in the Navy. According to Ay, Super 66 could be
found in "every compartment on the ship" "from the very
back end to the very front end," "from the very bottom to the
very top," because it was used on all the ships' pipes to
form insulated elbows on the pipe bends.
Ay stated that a destroyer class ship has about 50,000 lineal feet
of pipes and a small aircraft carrier 250,000 lineal feet, and it is
"all bent" to allow for expansion and contraction of the hot
pipes. Ay explained that
insulating cement came in a bag, so "you put your bag under your
arm, and you got a bucket, you bend down, and you just tilt your body and
you whip it up" with the water in the bucket. "You do it this way because the
dust comes up so you turn your head." The insulating cements were 15-20 %
Plaintiff's certified industrial hygienist,
Kenneth Cohen, stated he was familiar with the Eagle-Pitcher Super 66
insulating cement because it was "very commonly used in Navy
applications." His samplings
of air in environments where insulating cements were applied and removed
from piping recorded levels of asbestos in "millions of particles
per cubic foot." Cohen
explained the process of reentrainment—due to their aerodynamic
qualities, microscopic asbestos fibers in a still environment take about
eight hours to settle to the floor from an eight foot ceiling, but in a
typical work space with noise, vibration, and movement the asbestos
fibers are continuously whipped back up into the air. And he further stated that the first
phase of mixing insulating cement with water can be a particularly hazardous
operation because it causes "a major exposure of dust." Cohen opined that Joseph Garza's
work in the Navy, where he described how he mixed dry powder insulating
cement with water creating visible dust, "would have been a
substantial exposure to asbestos."
This comports with Joseph Garza's testimony that his clothes
and hair would get covered in dust from the materials he worked
with. In sum, all this constitutes
powerful evidence that Joseph was directly, repeatedly, even
continuously, exposed to ACL's asbestos while working on board Navy
Indeed, on the basis of such evidence,
plaintiffs' counsel asked the jury to attribute 100% fault to
ACL. The jury decided, however,
that 25% fault should be attributed to other suppliers of asbestos products. In this regard, ACL undisputedly had
the burden to establish concurrent or alternate causes by proving: that
Joseph Garza was exposed to defective asbestos-containing products of
other companies; that the defective designs of the other companies'
products were legal causes of the plaintiffs' injuries; and the
percentage of legal cause attributable to the other companies.
(Citations.)" (Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., supra,
32 Cal.App.4th at p. 478.)
Like the asbestos defendant in Sparks
v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., supra, however, ACL sought to show that
"other equally-defective products were concurrent causes" of
Joseph's asbestosis "primarily by eliciting the names of
other products and their manufacturers during cross-examination of the
plaintiffs' witnesses" without offering "independent
evidence ― from either lay or expert witnesses ― about the
specific properties (e.g., the asbestos content), performance, extent of
usage, or effects of the other products to which" Joseph was
exposed. (Id. at pp. 477-478 [affirming jury's allocation of
100% fault to
Owens-Illinois' product on the grounds it "was the sole legal cause of
plaintiffs' injuries"].)
In fact, even ACL's own industrial hygienist, Joel Cohen,
opined that Joseph Garza "received his substantial exposure"
to asbestos while serving in the Navy.
And it was during that period Joseph repeatedly experienced major
exposures of asbestos-containing dust while mixing the Super Eagle 66
insulating cement in buckets.
Moreover, Charles Ay explained asbestos can be friable or
non-friable—friable asbestos you can crumble by hand and easily
release the fibers, whereas the fibers from non-friable asbestos have to
be released mechanically. A
friable product like the insulating cement releases asbestos much easier
than other non-friable products Joseph Garza had worked with like gaskets
and packing. In sum, we conclude
substantial evidence supports the jury's apportionment of 75% fault
to ACL and 25% to other suppliers whose products Joseph Garza was exposed
to at other times during his working life.
The judgment is affirmed in all respects. ACL shall bear costs on appeal.
We concur:
McGuiness, P. J.
Siggins, J.


text:
That night, after all of you return to Kenrda's to rest:
Evangeline Will: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (14) + 5 = 19
Gkirkhan Will: 1d20 - 2 ⇒ (9) - 2 = 7
Kurik Will: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (13) + 1 = 14
Que Will: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (12) + 1 = 13
Vertielle Will: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (16) + 3 = 19
Wood Will: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (1) + 3 = 4
Eva and Vertielle sleep like babies. The rest of you, however...
Something awakens you. You sit up in bed and look towards the light streaming in through the barred windows. That weren't barred when you went to bed. You get up and walk over to the window to see what's causitn the effect. You can see the lights of a town in the distance...as if you were viewing it from atop a hill a few miles away.
You turn and realise that your bed has been replaced by a pallet and the door is barred as well. You rush over to the door and start banging on it. It's hot. The room starts to get hot as well. It seems to be filling with smoke. You realize you are screaming for help but no one answers. You fall, coughing and choking...
Kurik, Que: You awake in the rooms you've chosen, your throats raw from screaming.
Subdual-damage: 1d6 ⇒ 6
Gkirkhan, Wood: You also awaken with those same sensations...and burns on your hands from beating on the red hot barred door.
Damage: 1d4 ⇒ 4
Wow, max: the dice hate you guys...
|Que Xuang
"Noooooooo, Nooooooooo! " Que hammer against the barred door in panic, just to realize that she is kneeling in her bed, hammering against the wand on one end of her bed.
Que is still shivering as she gets up and washes. After she dresses in her other, more tight fitting garb she gets into the backyard, where she performs some Katas and acrobatic maneuvers.
Onlookers will soon realize that her movements are like a cat on the hunt, restrained and deadly even though she is barely able to conceal her anger and there is also some fear in her face which slowly fades away over the course of her practicing.
Is that 10 points of lethal or non-lethal, because I think Wood's in some serious trouble if the former. And as far as dice hating me, you have no idea.
Gkirkhan sits bolt upright as he awakens from the dream. Breathing comes in heavy pants while his heart races. His hands hurt as he feels his dry throat. The burns glow in the sight of his darkvision.
"Dem," he croaks, his breath still coming in fast and heavy, "Götterdämmerung, dot hurts."
Vot iz dis? Fear? Iz dis fear I feel?
Gkirkhan's steps are slow and steady as he makes his way to the basin in the room. His hands burn as he cups them to bring the cool water to his lips.
Vait, deed Hy not hear Que's voice?
Gkirkhan leaves his room and heads to Que's room and knocks (He's wearing pants, but not much else).
"Que, are hyu hokay en dere?"
|Wood the Wizard
Wood looks at his hands in wonder and surprise. Concerns of fear and danger set in only later.
How did this happen? The powerful memories of the fire in the prison must be projecting here. Tangible affects, my hands are indeed burned. Amazing.
Wood rushes outside to consult the others--but mainly concerned for Kendra.
"Kendra, Kendra are you ok" Wood shouts.
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
|Vertielle Siepar
|Que Xuang
Que opens the door, all sweaty wearing a long nightgown. You can see that she is still shaking from fear, but she quickly hides it.
Bluff to hide fear: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (2) + 7 = 9
Not really believable it seems
"It's nothing, just a bad dream"
When nothing changes the situation I assume Que will go out practicing, if not, forget please what I wrote above ;-)
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
Sense motive: 1d20 - 2 ⇒ (18) - 2 = 16 Dang, so that's what a good roll looks like :D
"Bad Dreams usually do not leave peeple vit burnt hands und sore throats."
Gkirkhan holds one of his hands with the palm facing Que to show the injury.
"Dere iz sumting -unnatural- goink on." Gkirkhan starts to shake, his voice gets coarser as he continues, "Dere iz sumting out dere, sumting big und evil, und Hy do not know how to fight et."
|Wood the Wizard
"I had a delightful sleep only interrupted by the horrible feeling I was in Harrowstone prison being burned alive, rushing to hammer at the door, and awaking to found my hands burned and standing by the door in a cold sweat."
"I am glad you did not have the nightmare Kendra. I am afraid my studies into dark things may have made me more susceptible to evil influences."
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
|Vertielle Siepar
|Vertielle Siepar
Vertielle emerges from her bed, still clothed in her sleeping robe and the crust of sleep evident on her face- it is obvious she has slept soundly, and deep. Her face flushes as she sees Gkirkhan in the hall, neither of them dressed proprietorially.
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
in her dream she responds
"What the heck?
That isn't normal?"
Wis check: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (17) + 2 = 19
she realises she's dreaming,
and entering lucid dream mode.
she speaks out in her dream
"Who that heck is messing with my Dream, show yourself?"
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
Gkirkhan smiles as he spots Vertielle.
"Vell, et looks like vun ov us had a goot night ov sleep."
He sweeps his hand out to show the burn marks and to indicate Que (whom I'm assuming is still at the door).
"Hy am afraid dot ve vere not so lucky. Hy tink de three ov us need to find out vot iz goink on."
"Who am I? hahahahahaha! More power than you could ever face...Evangline Valeria Aurora...Evangline Valeria Aurora...Evangline Valeria Aurora..." The voice (which somehow sounds like your own voice) keeps repeating your name.
Will save, please.
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
|Vertielle Siepar
|Que Xuang
|Vertielle Siepar
|Wood the Wizard
Sure Que is still standing in the door
Que gasps as she sees the burn marks on Gkirkhan's hands.
"By the gods, you should show this to a healer. How can a mere dream have caused this."
"Like Hy said, dreams do not hurt like dis."
Gkirkhan smiles and seems to be himself.
"Hy vould not vorry about me. Hy have had vorse. Hy tink dot gettink to bottom ov dis is a goot idea, und hy vouldn't mind et if hyu vore dot, bot by de looks ov hyur face Hy tink et vould be better if ve got some clothes on first. Hy vouldn't vant mein devilishly goot charms to distract hyu from hyur vork."
Great, mehbe Hy vent overboard vit dot idiot yesterday.
|Que Xuang
Also, the group who went to the tavern last night picked up a few roumors.
Vertielle was assured/warned that the food at the Laughing Demon isn't all fun and games. (The food has names like: vampire steaks, wolf balls, corpse chowder, and liquid ghosts) It's no coincidence that old Zokar serves more corpse chowder after umpopular merchants 'leave town' forever. If he ever invites you into his back room, don't go!
Gkirkhan, Riff told you that some people say that the Harrowstone executioner still guards the western balcony of the prison where he used to perform his task. Harrowstone used a scythe, and some folks say they've seen the scythe patrolling the balcony on it's own.
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
ZzZz....ZzZz.... Who are you.... ZzZz....ZzZz.... You dream wrecking jerk....
She can be a very heavy sleeper at times
still in lucid dream mode
having her thoughts now more focused on the Harrowstone fire, than a Martial arts tournament.
she feels as if she's looking into the past at the Harrowstone fire from outside Harrowstone and about 500ft into the air.
|Que Xuang
After finishing her training, Que changes anf washes again and comes to the living room where she intends to have a rich breakfast. When the other come too, she greets them friendly.
"I think we should either pay the prison a visit or perhaps gather more information about that Whispering Way. i don't think that I am the right one to search through books, but I can assist one of you."
|Wood the Wizard
"Que Xang, would you accompany me to the Unfurling Scroll? I may run into problems with my intimidating manner."
"Evangeline, can you see if the local temple can give us some information or other assistance for Harrowstone? I think I can spend about two more days of research at the Unfurling Scroll and then we plan on exploring that prison. I don't want to wait for the nightmares to come to us--obviously they can hurt."
@Evangline: Give me another will save. Since you're also trying to access a past memory, give me a Kn: history as well.
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
On the History roll: You see the panicked guards throwing torches down a shaft, which explodes in fire. They flee into the night, rather than fight it.
@Wood: roll a d5. You got three 25s, I'll let one of them be a prisoner you have heard legends of.
|Vertielle Siepar
I'll accompany you, Wood, I intend to research the dream phenomena.
What knowledge is that? Did I learn anything yesterday evening at the scroll?
Vertielle rejoins the group now fully clothed in the professor's gift, an exquisitely wrought corset. Those schooled in religion recognize several symbols subtly embroidered in the patterns, and those not notice the sensuality of the cut.
|Que Xuang
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
|Que Xuang
|Evangline Valeria Aurora
she says with a puzzled look
"what the heck, he brought souvenirs from his dream."
putting on her normal face she adds
"For my dream, I saw my name in blood on a trophy, and a voice telling me not to interfere.
Judging by a few clues from what he said, he is a prisoner who died in the Harrowstone fire, and wants to kill someone who has already died before.
Then it was like I witnessed the Harrowstone fire from the past,
I saw some guards throw torches down a shaft and it caused the fire."
|Que Xuang
"I dreamed about being on of the prisoners, caught in my cell while the fire consumed the prison." She shivers as the memory consumes her and her eyes stare through you shortly "There was fire everywhere, it was hot and the door closed...barred... I hammered against the door, but nobody came to free me... Gods it was terrible."
Que is now visibly pale and still shaking a bit.
Gkirkhan pputs on some clean clothes, and his hat, after scrubbing his face, careful of the still raw burns. He joins the others for breakfast downstairs and eats quietly while the others talk.
When Evangline asks about the "souvenirs," Gkirkhan holds up a burned hand.
"She iz talkink about dese."
He listens as her and Que recount their dreams, his eyebrows come dangerously close to his hairline when Que talks about her dream.
"Hyu too, jah? Dis iz not goot. Not goot at all."
|Que Xuang

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Worldwide Rank #114,519,718
- Follower/Following Ratio 2.67
- Daily New Followers 0
에리♥ Twitter Stats
@0112_0308 - Tracking 에리♥ Twitter profile since December 15, 2015
에리♥ Tweets
@0112_0308 has posted 43 tweets in the last 3 days, which translates to an average of 14.3 tweets per day.
에리♥ Twitter Followers
@0112_0308 has 8 followers on Twitter.
This account is #114,519,718 in the worldwide rank of the most popular Twitter users.
에리♥ Following on Twitter
@0112_0308 is following 3 Twitter accounts.
Last month this account followed 1 users.
에리♥ Predictions & Milestones
@0112_0308 will hit 15 followers in the next 3 months, and 36 in one year.
You are on 에리♥'s Twitter stats page
We track these Twitter stats since December 15, 2015 . You can see how many followers 에리♥ lost or gained and what the prediction is for tomorrow or the next 15 days, together with all kinds of other stats like rank compared to all Twitter users, tweets etc.
Why don't you give it a try and compare 에리♥ to yourself ? Or if you are 에리♥ get even more feature rich & up-to-date stats with our premium Twitter Stats.
Twitter Counter is the #1 Twitter stats site powered by Twitter. It all started in June 12, 2008 and we grew rather rapidly because of our Twitter Counter badge. The button is a nice small image that shows your visitors how many followers you have on Twitter. Within a year the button was on many many blogs around the world and we displayed more than 100 million buttons in one month. We track follower stats for over 180 million users now.


text:
Shondra Dawn Ford of Amarillo and Xavier Maurice Cruz of Dalhart were married Saturday, Oct. 9, at St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church. Monsignor Joseph Tash officiated.
The bride is the daughter of Kim Ford of Amarillo and the late Bruce Ford. Grandparents of the bride are Genice Sanchez of Amarillo, who attended the wedding, the late Wanda and George Ford and the late Ted Sanchez.
Parents of the groom are Estela and Oscar Cruz of Dalhart. Grandparents of the groom are Everardo Sotelo, the late Lupe Sotelo, the late Manuel Cruz and Efigenia Cruz.
Matron of honor was Ginny Smith of Amarillo, cousin of the bride. Bridal attendants were Casey Sanchez of Midland, cousin of the bride, and Jenna Gabel of Amarillo.
Best man was Phillip Beas-ley of Amarillo. Groom's attendants were Oscar Cruz of Amarillo, brother of the groom, and Brent Portwood of Odessa. Junior groom's attendant was J.T. Fogg of Amarillo, cousin of the bride.
Flower girls were Aubrey Barker and Reegan Felker. Ring bearer was Jayden Scott. Ushers were Keith Smith and Nate Pena.
The wedding reception was at the Parish Hall of the church. Reception attendants were Debi Boss and Rennaye O'Hair.
The bride graduated from Palo Duro High School and earned a bachelor's degree in public relations / advertising from West Texas A&M University in Canyon. She is a marketing representative at Sam's Wholesale Club.
The groom graduated from Dalhart High School and is a student at Amarillo College. He is the lead agent at Nationwide Insurance.
The couple plan a honeymoon to Honolulu. They will reside in Amarillo.
Amarillo Globe-News, Oct. 10, 2004
© 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
The New Hyde Park Fire Commissioner Michael Dolan and his son, Michael J. Dolan who is also a New Hyde Park firefighter, were arrested and charged this week with stealing a cache of smoke detectors from the fire department.
Nassau County Police Department 3rd squad detectives said Michael Dolan, 68, and his son Michael J. Dolan, 32, both of 1736 Aladdin Avenue, are accused of stealing 65 Kidde smoke detectors from a secured room in the New Hyde Park Fire Department headquarters located at 1555 Jericho Turnpike.
On Tuesday night, a source said the two men were suspended from the New Hyde Park Fire Department, where they were both volunteers.
The two men allegedly took the smoke detectors from fire department on June 21 at 7:30 a.m.
The value of the smoke detectors was not revealed.
Police declined to say what had led them to arrest the two men last week for the alleged theft of the smoke detectors last month.
Most of the smoke detectors were donated by the fire department by the New Hyde Park Lions Club and the Elks earlier this year, according to source who said the Nassau County Firefighters Museum also contributed some of them. The smoke detectors were to be installed for free by department volunteers in the households of elderly residents in New Hyde Park who need them.
Joseph Frank, an attorney with Sapienza & Frank in Massapequa who represents the New Hyde Park Fire Commissioners, said he could not comment on the case.
Both men are both charged with grand larceny 3rd degree.
Michael Dolan, the fire commissioner, surrendered to detectives on Sunday and was arraigned on Monday in 1st District Court. The younger Dolan surrendered on Monday and was arraigned on Tuesday, at 1st District Court in Hempstead.
Both men pled not guilty at their arraignments are scheduled to make a second court appearance on July 27.
The younger Dolan was released on his own recognizance and the elder Dolan was conditionally released to probation.


text:
Winter is soup season, with Americans consuming about 57 million bowls of soup in January alone, according to Campbell Soup Co. Scan data from Information Resources Inc., Chicago, show that wet soup sales in all channels last year were close to $3 billion. While major manufacturers, like Campbell, Camden, N.J., and Pillsbury Progresso Soups, Minneapolis, have followed the lead of smaller natural-food companies in creating healthy alternatives to full-fat soups, the lion's share of the ...
REGISTER TO VIEW THIS ARTICLE - Register for a Free Account
WhyRegisterfor FREE?
Registering for content on Supermarket News will give youINSTANTaccess to invaluable articles and media content that industry professionals rely on. You will have access to our special reports, feature articles, and industry analysis. It'sFREE, easy and quick. What are you waiting for!In addition you will also receive complimentary access to the SN salary survey data tables.
Click here to read the FAQ page if you have any questions (opens in a new window)
Attention Paid Print Subscribers: While you have already been grantedfreeaccess to SNwe ask that youregister now.We promise it will only take a few minutes! Or visit your profile and add your print magazine account number and zip code.


text:
Do you want to share this?
Gaby Sanchez homered and Brandon Inge knocked in a run in a 2 to 0 win over the Phillies last night for the Pirates . Jeff Locke was the winning pitcher. Game three is set for tonight . Pre-game at 6:40p.m. on 1160 WCCS.
NOTE: This thread is moderated, comments will not post immediately.
Simply confirm your registered email address below and click "Reset Password." We will immediately email you a link back to the site where you can enter a new password for this account.
Copyright © 2016 Renda. All Rights Reserved.
Kathleen Smathers


text:
Follow @DaytimeRoyalty
|Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!
For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member bashing in any form.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.
|The Chew's first ratings
|Tweet Topic Started: Sep 27 2011, 05:00 PM (5,495 Views)
|Oct 4 2011, 11:00 PM Post #41
^I had to check his twitter after you said that (I haven't been following any of them). Anyway, he claimed that the reports are all wrong and that they are #1 in their time slot & demo. They're up against Y&R & DOOL, and Deidre said DOOL was up 50% in the ratings. I don't see how tit's possible for what Michael Symon to be claiming to be true.
@chefsymon michael symon
@Lothuial dont believe the haters...they r above expectations #1 in our timeslot & demo
Edited by blueskies, Oct 4 2011, 11:01 PM.
|Oct 5 2011, 02:47 AM Post #42
RIP #Legend
Well I am sorry but the numbers don't line...he sounds delusional about the state of his show.
|Oct 5 2011, 03:23 AM Post #43
Streetcorner Philosopher
Well maybe he's technically correct. They could be above expectations, if expectations were really low. And the way they slice up the audience, maybe they were #1 in their demo. Who the hell knows what that demo could be- I'd assume 18-49 or 18-34 year-old women, but you never know.
It's all in how you break apart the tweet. And tv ratings...they're kinda weird.
|Oct 5 2011, 10:16 AM Post #44
The Chew does not need to do as well as AMC was doing in order to justify its existence. LIfestyle shows are far more cheap to produce than Soaps. I would not worry about the Chew facing cancellation anytime soon unless HH ratings dip below 1.5.
|Oct 5 2011, 10:55 AM Post #45
Dee said Days was up 50%? I'm intrigued... Where was this reported?
|Oct 5 2011, 11:36 AM Post #46
Someone quoted it from her fan page:
|Oct 7 2011, 02:13 PM Post #47
|ABC is feeding him a line of bull, of course he believes it LOL. It's what ABC does, they continually lie to people they employ
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »


text:
FM Preview: Sheffield United v Coventry City 30 Oct 2010
By Footymad Previewer
Updated Friday, 29th October 2010
Views: 209
The game between Sheffield United and Coventry City in the Championship on Saturday, 30th October 2010 at 15:00 takes centre stage for FootyMad's preview analysis.
Sheff. Utd. prepare to entertain Coventry City at Bramall Lane on Saturday afternoon, and hold the advantage on previous meetings between the two. Of the 25 games played, The Blades have recorded 10 wins, and Coventry City have come away with 6 victories.
The most recent encounter between these two sides at Bramall Lane was less than a year ago, in April 2010, the The Blades carving out a narrow 1-0 victory in a Championship match.
For a detailed analysis of the head-to-head between the two sides, click here
Interact with us
Sponsored links


text:
For losing a bet my girlfriend made me wear a dress and girls
girlfriend made me wear a dress; boy forced to wear a dress; man forced to wear a dress; made me wear panties; made him wear a dress; Related
Dress or a skirt as punishment – Mister Poll
I was made to wear a skirt / dress as punishment. I knew a boy who had to wear skirt / dress as punishment. Should he have to wear the dress / skirt to school?
sissy made to wear dress for laughs – YouTube
sissy made to wear dress and do humiliating things. Create Account | Sign In. Browse | Movies | Upload. Search . 3:09 Add to boys dress as girls by 09awe 243,255 views
boy made to wear sisters ice skating dress as punishment!? | Ice
I had problems with mine? "Mommy makes fun of my sister, skating dress, and I kinda ripped it? ? Mother had to sew and fix it, and as punishment, h?'s Made me
boys dresses during the late 19th century
Some quite plain dresses were made for boys and marketed as boy 1890s and by the turn-of-the 20th century it had become much less common for boys to wear dresses.
Letting boys wear dresses, girls play cowboys – ParentDish
One of the little 3-year-old boys at my son's old daycare liked to dress himself in tutus and high heel that me not letting him wear dresses is going to prevent
Boy angry because he couldn't wear dress to prom | Scoop's Views
Was it sweet 16 and never been kissed for a gay high school student who wanted to wear a dress? So,. who said if a boy like to wear dress, he is Gay ?
Did anyone else go to catholic school where sometimes they made
Did anyone else go to catholic school where sometimes they made the boys wear bows or dresses(seepic) for?
Should I worry if my son wants to wear dresses? | BabyCenter
For all of you moms out there insisting that boys should NOT be allowed to wear dresses because they are for "girls", I ask you, how many of you wear pants?
My Sissy Dresses – Sissy Dressing Room
Sissy Dresses – Each and every dress here is going to be custom-made for ME! They will fit top and bottom. You don't like to wear sissy dresses, do you?


text:
Kate Middleton Dazzles In Familiar Black Lace Gown At London Film Screening
Kate Middleton and her husband Prince William stepped out for a screening of David Attenborough's "Natural History Museum Alive 3D" in London on Wednesday.
The Duchess of Cambridge looked lovely in a floor-length Alice Temperley black lace dress that showed off her incredibly slim, post-baby figure. Known for recycling her clothes, she wore the same dress last year to the London "War Horse" premiere. It still fits after baby!
Kate gave birth to son George Alexander Louis in July. Rapper Kanye West recently said his and Kim Kardashian's five-month old daughter North should be considered royalty and her status equal to Prince George, the first-born child of William and Kate.
In an interview on Power 105's Breakfast show last month, West declared: "My daughter is in a position of a level of royalty like the prince and princess in London."
Whatever you say, Kanye.
See more photos of Kate...


text:
Comment this
Make sure your text complies with our rules
Today, a cute guy asked for my phone number and I gladly gave it to him. I was feeling really good about myself for getting hit on by the star football player. That was until he called 8 times and left 5 messages. In 2 hours. FML
by WhoaThere / 12/18/2009 at 12:23am / United States (California) / Miscellaneous
Make sure your text complies with our rules


text:
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Roy White has been appointed vice president of education, and executive director for the educational foundation of the General Merchandise Distributors Council here. ally brought on board to broaden the scope of the educational foundation's offerings to GMDC members and to provide a focus to grow the foundation's activities," said Richard W. Tilton, the GMDC's president and the foundation's secretary/treasurer. White reports to Tilton. According to Tilton, ...
REGISTER TO VIEW THIS ARTICLE - Register for a Free Account
Why Register for FREE?
Registering for content on Supermarket News will give you INSTANT access to invaluable articles and media content that industry professionals rely on. You will have access to our special reports, feature articles, and industry analysis. It's FREE, easy and quick. What are you waiting for! In addition you will also receive complimentary access to the SN salary survey data tables.
Click here to read the FAQ page if you have any questions (opens in a new window)
Attention Paid Print Subscribers: While you have already been granted free access to SN we ask that you register now. We promise it will only take a few minutes! Or visit your profile and add your print magazine account number and zip code.


text:
On June 22, 2012, Docs in Progress held their Annual Open House during the AFI Silver Docs Film Festival in Silver Spring, MD. Thinking Forward Media President & Docs in Progress Board Member Kiley Kraskouskas launched the "Spread the Stories" 30-day Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign to raise $10,000 to support the work of DIP. Adam Chapnick, IndieGoGo.com Director of Business Development skyped in for the live launch!
Docs In Progress is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to empowering independent documentary filmmakers and educating the public about documentary as an art form.
To learn more about and to support the campaign, please visit: