DAVID W. SKOLNICK, State Trial Referee.
Tyler Perkins was a pipefitter from on or about 1961 to 1962, a pipefitter inspector from 1964 to 1970 at Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, and a radiographer from on or about 1964 to 1970 at the Electric Boat facility in Quincy, Massachusetts. He returned to Electric Boat, Groton in 1977 and again in 1980 as an inspector where he has remained to the present, a total of 40 years at Electric Boat.
As a pipefitter Perkins would cut and carry pipe to where it would be in place for welders to "tack in hangers." He recalls working around asbestos-containing products, specifically "gaskets" while working on the Lafayette (Exhibit A, Deposition, page 9). Also, he identified by number the following boats in the process of new construction: 616, 617, 23, 26, 13, 14 and 15. The identity of some of these boats is illuminated by the affidavit of Calvin Hopkins who worked on the 616 Lafayette, 617 Alexander Hamilton, and 623 Nathan Hale. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Hopkins' affidavit states that he was employed at Electric Boat, Groton from 1968 to 2000:
5. Throughout my career with Electric Boat, Groton, Connecticut and while on board the submarines, I recall installing, ripping out, packing and unpacking stuffing tubes running through the bulkheads and to electrical panels, boxes and motors, and I recall using Penn El stuffing tubes.
6. Throughout my career with Electric Boat, Groton, Connecticut and while on board the submarines, I recall using Baco asbestos packing to insulate, pack and seal electric wire and cable installed in the stuffing tubes running through the bulkheads and to electrical boxes, panels and motors.
CT Page 17879
7. As an electrician I worked in the electrical material crib and I recall seeing and handling packages which contained asbestos packing and had the name Baco on the label.
It is apparent that Calvin Hopkins was working contemporaneously aboard the Lafayette, Alexander Hamilton and the Nathan Hale with Tyler Perkins and places the defendant's asbestos-containing product Baco stuffing on board these submarines while Perkins was working on them. As "Baco asbestos packing" is a product of the defendant and was being used to "insulate and pack and seal wiring and cable into Baco stuffing tubes," while Perkins was aboard these subs, a material issue of fact exists as to whether this defendant contributed to creating an atmosphere containing asbestos which proved deleterious to the plaintiff's health while he worked.
The standard of proof burdening the plaintiff was enunciated by the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case of Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan wherein the majority stated: "Although no witnesses testified that they saw the plaintiff (decedent) handle the defendant's products, the jury could have found or inferred that he was exposed to the defendant's products based on (a) the work that he was engaged in; (b) the length of time he was employed; and (c) the fact that coworkers who performed similar work testified that they handled the defendant's product." Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, 212 Conn. 509, 530 (1989).
The court believes that the plaintiff has shown that material issues of fact exist with respect to the presence of the defendant's products containing asbestos in the work environment of the plaintiff. As held by Rhode Island Superior Court Justice Alice Gibney in the asbestos context:
So extreme a remedy as summary judgment should not be used as a substitute for trial or as a device intended to impose a difficult burden on nonmoving parties to have his (or her) day in court unless it is clear that no genuine issue of fact remains to be tried.
North Am. Planning Corp. v. Guido, 289 A.2d 423, 110 R.I. (1972). A judge's function when considering a summary judgment motion is not to cull out the weak cases from the herd of lawsuits waiting to be tried; rather, only if the case is dead on arrival, should the court take the drastic step of administering the last rites by granting summary judgment.
Mitchell v. Mitchell, CT Page 17880
756 A.2d 179 R.I. (2000).
The court finds that material issues of fact exist for the trier of fact to determine in this case.
Accordingly, the defendant Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment as against Tyler Perkins is denied.
CT Page 17881