Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
151 F.3d 297 (1998)


Facts

Cimino and other individuals exposed to products containing asbestos (plaintiffs) brought a class-action products-liability suit against Pittsburgh Corning and other manufacturers of the products (defendants). The plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos while working different types of jobs at several different worksites at different times. In all, the class consisted of 2,298 claims. The jury found that the defendants sold products that were unreasonably dangerous and that each defendant was guilty of gross negligence. The district court divided the plaintiffs’ damages into five categories of disease that might have resulted from exposure to asbestos: mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, asbestosis, and pleural disease. The district court then randomly selected 160 sample cases (a statistically significant percentage of the total claims) that included plaintiffs from each disease category. As to each of these 160 cases, the district court charged the jury with respect to determining whether the individual plaintiff sustained harm from an asbestos-containing product and, if so, the amount of damages that should be awarded. Each defendant individually stipulated to a comparative percentage of liability, but reserved the right to object to the district court’s trial plan. Under the stipulation, Pittsburgh Corning was 10 percent liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries. The jury reached a verdict in each of the 160 sample cases. The district court then planned to extrapolate these jury verdicts to the remaining claims by assigning each claim to one of the five categories of disease and awarding each plaintiff an average amount of the damages awarded in the sample cases. Pittsburgh Corning appealed the district court’s sample-case verdicts and extrapolation plan.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Garwood, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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.

  2. 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 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.