Product Liability – Negligence

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: Dale Chapp, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

Case No.: 2018AP937

Officials: Kessler, Kloppenburg and Dugan, JJ.

Focus: Product Liability – Negligence

Dale Chapp, individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Ruth Chapp, deceased, appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Colgate-Palmolive Company, the manufacturer of Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder, dismissing Chapp’s claims against it.

This action arises from Chapp’s claim that his wife, Ruth Chapp, was directly exposed to inhalable asbestos from her daily use of “asbestos containing” Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder from 1969 to the mid-1980’s and that this asbestos exposure was a contributing cause of Ruth’s death due to mesothelioma, a type of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. Chapp acknowledges that his occupation and projects resulted in Ruth’s exposure to asbestos fibers. Chapp states that Ruth was regularly exposed to inhalable asbestos from the products and/or machinery that he worked with and around when she shook out and laundered his work clothes. He also alleges that Ruth was exposed to inhalable asbestos because she used Colgate’s Cashmere Bouquet talc powder that contained asbestos, at least once a day for approximately nine years.

Chapp alleges the following claims against Colgate: (1) strict liability defective design; (2) strict liability unreasonably dangerous products; (3) negligence; (4) negligence per se; and (5) punitive damages. The trial court granted Colgate’s motion for summary judgment because it concluded, as a matter of law, that Chapp had “not shown more than the mere possibility of causation,” which was insufficient to overcome the summary judgment motion. The trial court determined Chapp’s submissions could only show that some of the Cashmere Bouquet used by Ruth could have contained asbestos. It concluded that because, at best, liability and non-liability were evenly balanced, the jury could only find causation by speculation and conjecture, which would be improper.

Chapp argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it granted summary judgment to Colgate on the issue of causation because it failed to view the evidence in a light most favorable to Chapp and to draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. We disagree and, therefore, affirm.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.