After Charles Flowers’ death from mesothelioma, his heirs brought this wrongful death action against a number of defendants including Union Carbide Corporation, which had mined a form of asbestos to which he was allegedly exposed. At the conclusion of trial, the jury brought in a verdict for Union Carbide, by then the sole remaining defendant. On appeal, the Flowerses argue that the trial court erred when it excluded certain evidence, when it presented a stipulation between the parties to the jury, and when it denied their motion for new trial. We find no actionable error and affirm. This case’s unfortunate sequence of events began when, after years of employment at a DuPont plant in Kinston, North Carolina, Charles Flowers contracted mesothelioma, a rare and lethal form of cancer. After his death, the deceased man’s widow and sons the Flowerses brought the present action against over two dozen defendants, alleging that he died as a result of exposure to a variety of asbestos-containing compounds. One of these, known as “Ready-Mix” and manufactured by Georgia-Pacific Corporation, was normally used to seal cracks in sheetrock and joints between sheetrock walls. Georgia Pacific sometimes purchased a form of asbestos known as “Calidria” from Union Carbide Corporation for use in products including Ready-Mix. There was conflicting evidence as to whether Ready-Mix was used at the plant where Flowers worked, and some evidence that Flowers was exposed there to other forms of asbestos known to cause mesothelioma, as when old pipe insulation was removed and replaced.
During voir dire, the parties determined that some of their deponents, especially Drs. Hyde and Sawyers, would be testifying as to the medical condition of workers at the King City, California plant where Union Carbide mined Calidria, and that the doctors’ testimony would be based in part on King City documents that had not yet been produced. The court ordered Union Pacific to obtain the King City records, and offered the Flowerses either a continuance or a voluntary dismissal with the opportunity to refile on a fast track so as to give them time to review these materials. The plaintiffs elected to proceed with their case nonetheless, though they later sought to introduce some of the King City documents during the testimony of their expert epidemiologist. The trial court ruled that since the epidemiologist could not offer any opinions as to the medical records, they were inadmissible during his testimony. After the jury returned its verdict against them, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the basis of this evidence.
