## Facts

- Yves LaGueux sued Union Carbide Corporation for negligence and strict products liability, alleging an asbestos-related disease from exposure to asbestos-containing materials.
- Union Carbide was a supplier of asbestos fiber used in products to which LaGueux claimed exposure.
- At trial, evidence indicated Georgia-Pacific used asbestos from multiple suppliers, including Union Carbide, Johns-Manville, and Philip Carey, during overlapping time periods.
- Union Carbide did not present evidence specifying the comparative time frames of use or the relative amounts of asbestos supplied by Union Carbide versus Johns-Manville and Philip Carey.
- Over LaGueux’s objection, the trial court listed Johns-Manville and Philip Carey on the verdict form as Fabre nonparties and instructed the jury to apportion fault to them.
- The jury returned a verdict for LaGueux but apportioned 70% fault to nonparties (including Johns-Manville, Philip Carey, and Georgia-Pacific), reducing Union Carbide’s share of damages; 10% was allocated to Georgia-Pacific and was not challenged on appeal.
- LaGueux appealed the inclusion of Johns-Manville and Philip Carey as Fabre nonparties and the related comparative fault instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether it was error to include Johns-Manville and Philip Carey on the verdict form as Fabre nonparties absent competent evidence allowing the jury to assign them a non-speculative percentage of fault.
2. Whether a Fabre comparative fault instruction was improper where the record lacked evidence permitting a reasoned allocation of fault to those nonparties.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment.
- It held the trial court erred by allowing fault apportionment to Johns-Manville and Philip Carey because the evidence did not allow the jury to allocate percentages of fault without guessing.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to allocation of fault/damages consistent with the court’s ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant seeking Fabre apportionment must present competent, substantial evidence that permits a jury to assign a reasonable percentage of fault to a nonparty.
- General proof that a nonparty’s product was used at some point, without evidence of relative amounts and exposure timing sufficient for comparison, does not support placing the nonparty on the verdict form.
- Comparative fault percentages may not be based on speculation; where improper nonparty apportionment materially affects the allocation of liability, reversal and a new trial on allocation/damages is required.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the verdict’s fault allocation because Union Carbide lacked evidence enabling a non-speculative comparison of Johns-Manville’s and Philip Carey’s contributions to the claimed asbestos exposure, requiring a new trial on allocation of fault and damages.


LaGueux v. Union Carbide Corp., 861 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)