Byers v. Lincoln Electric Co.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
607 F. Supp. 2d 840 (2009)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Eddie Byers (plaintiff) had been a welder all his life until he could no longer weld because of a neurological disease called Manganese-Induced Parkinsonism. Byers claimed that he inhaled the fumes given off by welding rods, the fumes contained manganese, the manganese caused him permanent neurological injury and other harm, and the welding manufacturers knew or should have known that the welding rods would cause these damages. Byers brought suit against nine welding-rod manufacturers, Lincoln Electric Co., Hobart Brothers Company, ESAB Group, BOC Group, TDY Industries, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), Eutectic Corporation, Sandvik, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corp. (WEC) (the manufacturers) (defendants). Lincoln Electric Co., Hobart Brothers Company, and ESAB Group supplied most of the welding rods that Byers had used in his career and were the only manufacturers of products that Byers used regularly and consistently. The other six manufacturers made products Byers only used occasionally and without regularity. Byers presented evidence of the threshold safety limit for safe exposure to welding fumes from the American Conference on Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA). Byers also provided information from his own documents, an OSHA database, and anecdotal descriptions regarding the type and frequency of his exposures to show that his exposure levels to manganese were enough to cause his injury. The manufacturers filed motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Malley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.