Immediately after a New York jury found in favor of a mesothelioma victim and his wife, awarding them $2 million in damages, one of the defendants in the case filed a motion asking for the award to be thrown out despite the jury’s verdict and for a new trial to be ordered. Upon review of the company’s claims, the New York Supreme Court in Niagara County rejected their argument and allowed the verdict to stand.
Chemical Plant Exposure to Asbestos Blamed for Mesothelioma
The mesothelioma lawsuit was filed by Benedict and Terri Viglietta after Mr. Viglietta was diagnosed with the rare asbestos-related disease. The couple named Hedman Resources Limited as a defendant, blaming the company’s cationic fiber that he worked with at a Durez chemical plant during the summers of 1974 and 1976 for his exposure. Johns Manville was also named as a defendant.
After hearing evidence in the case, a jury found both companies liable for the mesothelioma victim’s injuries and awarded the couple $1.5 million in past pain and suffering and another $500,000 for future pain and suffering. The award was split between the two defendants with Johns Manville found to be 65% at fault and Hedman found to be 35% at fault. Hedman almost immediately filed a motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict and asked for a new trial to be held.
Judges Weigh Discarding Jury’s Mesothelioma Verdict
In arguing that the jury’s verdict should be discarded and a new mesothelioma trial ordered, Hedman claimed that the evidence against them had been insufficient to establish that Mr. Viglietta had been exposed to enough asbestos to have caused his mesothelioma. They also claimed that the court had made multiple errors regarding subpoenas and requests for jury charges, and that the jury’s finding of reckless disregard was not warranted based on the evidence that they’d heard.
The judges of the state Supreme Court weighed each of Hedman’s arguments against the mesothelioma case’s outcome and found each of them lacking. They concluded that the evidence had met the state’s standards, that the subpoena and jury charges had been handled correctly, and that the evidence had been sufficient to show that the company had shown reckless disregard for the safety of others. The motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict and requesting a new trial was denied.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, it is important that you have access to knowledgeable, experienced resources. Contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn how we can help.
