Camplin v. ACandS, Inc.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

LINDA GEORGE SEE APPENDIX A
W. RUSSELL SIPES
Laudig George Rutherford & Sipes
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

CATHLEEN A. and EMMETT O. CAMPLIN, )
)
Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), ) Cause No. 49S02-0202-
CV-128
) in the Supreme Court
v. )
)
ACandS, INC., et al., ) Cause No. 49A02-0106-
CV-429
) in the Court of Appeals
Appellees (Defendants Below). )
)

____________________________________________________________________________
__

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Kenneth H. Johnson, Judge
Cause No. 49D02-9501-MI-0001-375

May 17, 2002

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

Cathleen Camplin allegedly contracted a disease as a result of
contact with asbestos fibers brought home on the person and clothing of her
husband Emmett, a union insulator. The trial court dismissed the Camplins’
suit on the basis that Mrs. Camplin lacked standing under Indiana’s Product
Liability Act.

The Indiana Court of Appeals invited us to accept jurisdiction over
the Camplins’ appeal because it involves the same issue as another case in
which we had granted transfer. See Stegemoller v. ACandS, Inc., 749 N.E.2d
1216, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), transfer granted, 761 N.E.2d 423 (Ind.
2001). We accepted jurisdiction, and now hold that Mrs. Camplin has
standing as a bystander under the Act.[1]

Analysis

The Act governs actions by users or consumers against manufacturers
or sellers for physical harm caused by products. Ind. Code Ann. § 34-20-1-
1 (West 1999). For purposes of the Act, “consumer” includes “any bystander
injured by the product who would reasonably be expected to be in the
vicinity of the product during its reasonably expected use.” Id. § 34-6-2-
29. Who qualifies under this statutory definition is a legal question, to
be decided by the court. Estate of Shebel v. Yaskawa Elec. Am., Inc., 713
N.E.2d 275, 279 (Ind. 1999).

We hold today in Stegemoller v. ACandS, Inc., No. 49S02-0111-CV-593,
slip op. (Ind. May 17, 2002), that a plaintiff who allegedly contracted a
disease as a result of contact with asbestos fibers brought home on the
person and clothing of her husband has standing as a bystander under the
Act. Our reasoning in that case applies here, and we reach the same
result: taking into account the nature of asbestos products, Mrs. Camplin
has a cognizable claim as a bystander under the Act.

Conclusion

We reverse the dismissal of this action and direct that it be
reinstated.

Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX A: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

For ACandS, Inc.; North American Refractories Co.
SONIA C. DAS
SUE MEHRINGER
LISA DILLMAN
Lewis & Wagner
Indianapolis, Indiana

For Amchem Products; C.E. Thurston; Certain Teed Corp.; Flexitallic; T&N,
PLC; Union Carbide

MICHAEL BERGIN

DANIEL LONG
Locke Reynolds LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

For Oakfabco, Inc.

JOHN L. LISHER

Osborne Hiner & Lisher
Indianapolis, Indiana

For Rapid American; Flintkote Co.

DOUGLAS B. KING

JEFFREY McKEAN
ROGER ORLUP
Wooden & McLaughlin, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

For Combustion Engineering; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical

CHRISTOPHER LEE

Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn
Evansville, Indiana

For Foster Wheeler LLC; A.P. Green; Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.

JASON L. KENNEDY

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney
Chicago, Illinois

For Fargo Insulation

JAMES E. ROCAP

JEFFREY B. FETCH
Rocap Witchger LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

For D.B. Riley, Inc.
STACY ALEXANDER

REGINALD BISHOP

Roberts & Bishop
Indianapolis, Indiana

For BMW Constructors, Inc.

EDWARD HARNEY

Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

For General Electric Co.

KEVIN KNIGHT
Ice Miller
Indianapolis, Indiana

For General Refractories; Grefco

RANDALL NYE
SCOTT LOITZ
Beckman, Kelly & Smith
Hammond, Indiana

For Central Supply Co.

MARY K. REEDER
CHARLES C. DOUGLAS
Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

-----------------------
[1] Defendants Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. and North American
Refractories Co. have filed for bankruptcy, and this decision is thus
subject to applicable rules of bankruptcy law as to them.