The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for Exxon Mobil corporation in Stanley Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (No. 14-22-00756-CV), a premises liability case involving alleged exposure to olivine dust. The ruling highlights the importance of reliable expert testimony and strict adherence to procedural rules in toxic tort litigation.

Case Background

Stanley Cole, a contractor who worked as an abrasive blaster at Exxon’s Beaumont facility (1998–2005), claimed occupational exposure to olivine dust caused his 2014 diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). He sued in 2018, alleging Exxon negligently allowed ultrahazardous abrasive blasting without proper safety measures or warnings. Exxon argued Cole lacked reliable expert causation evidence. The trial court excluded Cole’s expert testimony, granted Exxon’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case. Cole appealed.

The Court’s Analysis

1. Jurisdiction

Following the trial court’s decision on Exxon’s motion for summary judgment, Cole amended his petition to remove silica exposure claims without first seeking leave from the trial court. This attempt to defeat the adverse summary judgment ruling was rejected by the Court of Appeals who noted the amended petition could not have divested the trial court’s jurisdiction.

2. Expert Causation Evidence

To prove causation in toxic tort cases, plaintiffs must show both general causation (the substance can cause the harm) and specific causation (it caused Plaintiff’s harm). The court applied standards from Havner¹ and Flores², requiring reliable epidemiological studies, dose-response evidence, and proof of comparable or greater exposure levels.

• Exposure and Dose Calculations: Cole’s industrial hygiene expert, Frank Parker, calculated exposure using an incorrect protection factor for Cole’s air-fed hood. Parker’s flawed calculations rendered his opinion unreliable.
• Epidemiological Studies: Dr. Haber, Cole’s medical expert, cited studies linking metal dust exposure to pulmonary fibrosis. However, none involved olivine dust or provided comparable exposure data, making them insufficient for specific causation.
• Direct Evidence of Causation: Cole argued his “overwhelming dust burden” caused lung damage, but the court found this speculative without reliable dose calculations or studies directly linking olivine to his condition.

3. Summary Judgment

The court affirmed summary judgment for Exxon, noting Cole failed to present reliable expert causation evidence. The recognition of mixed dust pneumoconiosis as an occupational disease does not exempt plaintiffs from proving causation in their specific case.

Lessons Learned

1. Reliable Expert Testimony is Crucial: Expert opinions must be based on accurate data and sound methodology.
2. Specific Causation Requires More Than General Risk: Plaintiffs must show their specific exposure caused their injury, supported by evidence of comparable exposure levels.
3. Protective Equipment Matters: Protective gear, like air-fed hoods, can significantly reduce exposure and must be factored into dose calculations. These facts should be developed during discovery.
4. Follow Procedural Rules: Amending pleadings after a summary judgment hearing requires court approval; failure to comply can result in dismissal.

Conclusion

The Stanley Cole v. Exxon Mobil decision highlights the critical role of reliable expert evidence and procedural compliance, while demonstrating the value of challenging flawed expert testimony. As courts maintain high standards for causation in toxic exposure claims, sound science and qualified experts remain essential.

1. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 714 (Tex. 1997). ↩︎
2. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765 (2007). ↩︎