Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Ronald Viale used, handled, or was otherwise exposed to asbestos-containing products, contracted mesothelioma as a result, and died in July 2018. They alleged that the exposure occurred at various locations, including Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Benicia Refinery. Viale’s wife and daughter asserted one claim against Exxon titled “Negligence – Premises Owner/Contractor Liability.”

In discovery, the plaintiffs described their claim as based on Exxon’s allegedly negligent hiring and supervision of other contractors and trades working near Viale at the refinery. They said those workers exposed him to asbestos dust and that Exxon failed to protect workers from that dust.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of a material fact requires a trial. A moving party may meet its initial burden by identifying an absence of evidence supporting an essential element of the opposing party’s claim. Once that burden is met, the opposing party must identify specific evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.

Exxon relied on the plaintiffs’ disclosures and discovery responses, deposition testimony, union records, Social Security earnings records, and a declaration from a former Exxon project engineer. The court found that Exxon met its initial burden.

Evidence Considered

The plaintiffs’ opposition did not address the negligent-hiring and negligent-supervision theories identified in their discovery responses. Instead, they argued that Exxon’s own employees engaged in negligent conduct that caused or contributed to Viale’s injury.

The court considered several categories of evidence:

- Benjamin Upton testified that he saw an Exxon inspector scrape material from insulated piping to measure its thickness. The court assumed this testimony could support an inference that asbestos dust became airborne, but found no evidence showing when the scraping occurred or that Viale was nearby at that time. - John Hernandez testified that Exxon unit operators worked around him and Viale and monitored refinery equipment. He did not recall a unit operator maintaining equipment near Viale, and the plaintiffs offered no evidence that the operators exposed Viale to asbestos or otherwise caused his injury. - Craten Sanders testified that Viale obtained parts from an Exxon-uniformed storekeeper. The plaintiffs identified no evidence that the parts contained asbestos, were defective, or caused or contributed to Viale’s injury. - Sanders testified that Exxon did not warn him and Viale that asbestos was present. The court found that the plaintiffs offered no evidence showing that asbestos at the refinery was concealed or that Viale’s employer did not know, and could not reasonably have known, about it. - Sanders also testified that Exxon had authority to stop contractors’ work. The court explained that a general power to supervise or stop work is not, by itself, the kind of active control that supports liability. The plaintiffs offered no evidence that Exxon exercised control in a way that harmed Viale. - Charles Ay stated that there was asbestos dust throughout the refinery and asbestos “everywhere.” The court found no evidence showing that the conditions when Ay worked there were the same as when Viale worked there, or that conduct Ay observed occurred in the area where Viale worked.

Holding and Disposition

The court concluded that the witnesses’ statements and documents, considered separately or together, failed to establish a triable issue concerning Exxon’s negligence. The court therefore granted Exxon Mobil Corporation’s motion for summary judgment.