From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...
Aldridge v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
34 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (1999)
Aldridge and others (plaintiffs) were former employees—or surviving representatives of former employees—who worked for Kelly-Springfield Tire Company (Kelly-Springfield) at its manufacturing plant. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Goodyear) (defendant) supplied various chemicals to Kelly-Springfield for use in its operations. Approximately 200 chemicals used at the plant were hazardous. Of these, Goodyear supplied about 10 percent. Plaintiffs sued Goodyear in 66 separate cases, which were consolidated for trial in federal district court, alleging that the chemicals supplied by Goodyear caused them to develop various occupational diseases, most predominantly cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease. Three prior lawsuits had been brought by former employees of Kelly-Springfield against Goodyear, making similar allegations. The first set of cases was settled. In the second and third sets, the court granted summary judgment to Goodyear on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to establish causation. In their attempt to avoid the same fate, plaintiffs in the instant matter provided additional evidence that was intended to show a link between the chemicals provided by Goodyear and plaintiffs’ diseases. Two expert witnesses for plaintiffs submitted affidavits in which they opined that each of several named chemicals supplied by Goodyear was a “substantial contributing cause” of plaintiffs’ diseases. Each expert’s opinion was purportedly based on training, experience, scientific research, and scientific literature. Neither affidavit, however, discussed any specific training, studies, or methods; any description of how a particular chemical caused a plaintiff’s particular disease; the level of exposure required for a particular chemical to cause a particular disease; or potential alternative causes for plaintiffs’ diseases. Goodyear moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Harvey, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 239,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.