Coene v. 3M Company
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
2017 WL 1046749 (2017)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Kodak technician Robert Coene (plaintiff) spent 80 percent of his time 3D-printing prototype camera parts. The process uses lasers that selectively melt or sinter powders into solids. Kodak used two types of powder, both 50 percent glass (silica) and nylon or resin. Powdered silica is either amorphous or crystalline. Inhaling crystalline silica causes silicosis. Kodak used amorphous silica, but powder sold as amorphous often contains up to 20 percent crystalline, and heating amorphous silica may crystallize it. While printing, sandblasting, and brushing the parts, Coene wore a 3M respirator mask intended to prevent inhaling the dust but developed silicosis and lung scarring. Coene sued 3M Company (defendant), claiming that the mask failed. Coene retained medical expert and toxicologist Dr. Meggs, who reviewing Kodak’s 3D-printing process, the powders used, technical literature on sintering and silica crystallization, and Coene’s medical records. Meggs concluded the sintering created crystalline silica, causing Coene’s silicosis, and nylon and resin dust contributed to his lung scarring. 3M requested summary judgment, arguing that Meggs was not qualified as an expert on whether Coene’s inhaling toxic dust while wearing the 3M mask caused his injuries, making Meggs’s opinion unreliable and inadmissible.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Geraci, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
