Brumley vs. FDCC Asbestos Case Discussion: Barrington v. A.H. Robins Co. Supreme Court Ruling

Read the Supreme Court’s decision on the plaintiff’s argument in the Barrington case. The case is discussed in the appellate decision in Brumley, et. al vs. FDCC California, Inc. In this decedent asbestos cancer case, the plaintiffs appeal the lower court’s decision on the wrongful death claim filed on behalf of the widow and children and the widow’s loss of consortium.

The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had refused to adopt the plaintiff’s argument because “the relation back rule has so far been confined to the statute of limitations.” (Barrington, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 152.) In explaining its contrary conclusion that the doctrine should also be applied in the context of section 581a, the court noted, “The nature and purpose of section 581a and the statute of limitations, after all, are virtually identical. ‘In essence, these statutes [§§ 581a, 583] are similar to the statutes of limitation, only they operate during the period after the plaintiff files the complaint rather than before the plaintiff files the complaint.’ [Citation.] [] Both section 581a and the statute of limitations were designed to move suits expeditiously toward trial. [Citation.] Both statutes were enacted to promote the trial of the case before evidence is lost or destroyed, and before witnesses become unavailable or their memories dim. [Citation.] And both statutes conflict with the ‘strong public policy’ that seeks to dispose of litigation on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. [Citation.]” (Barrington, at p. 152.) Because of this similarity, the court held that “certain exceptions created to mitigate the harshness of the statute of limitations—such as the relation-back rule—should be applied also to section 581a.” (Ibid.)

In concluding, the court also noted, “The failure to apply the relation-back rule when an amended complaint contains a new cause of action based on different operative facts is likely to lead to an absurd result. Here, the plaintiff could have filed her Dalkon Shield cause of action as a separate lawsuit. Instead, she chose to take advantage of the liberal rules of joinder of causes of action. Had she not elected to join all her causes of action in one pleading in the interests of judicial economy, she would not have faced dismissal under section 581a. [] . . . Any rule that penalizes a plaintiff for the mere form in which the pleadings are cast is inherently unfair and deserves to be discarded.” (Barrington, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 157.)

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with an asbestos illness like mesothelioma, lung cancer or asbestosis, complete the form on this page to get a FREE and prompt review of your case by a leading asbestos attorney. Weitz & Luxenberg is a leading mesothelioma law firm with a substantial history of success in asbestos exposure cases.