Jeffrey Campise died of malignant mesothelioma when he was just 42 years old. His family filed a personal injury lawsuit against the various companies whose talc he had used and been exposed to since infancy, accusing them of negligently and knowingly exposing him to asbestos. Among the defendant companies was talc supplier Whitaker, Clark, & Daniels, which filed a motion for summary judgment asking for the suit to be dismissed. Though the court denied this request, they did agree that the claim did not warrant a punitive damages claim.
Family Argues that Lifetime of Exposure to Asbestos in Talc Caused Mesothelioma
According to the lawsuit filed by his brother Christopher on behalf of his estate, Jeffrey Campise’s mesothelioma was caused by a lifetime of exposure to talc products. The claim filed against Whitaker, Clark, & Daniels cites his mother having used a variety of powder products in his presence, including Avon Imari and Skin So Soft, Jean Nate, talcum powder, and Chanel No. 5 Body Powder. She also used Caldesene powder on him during his diaper changes, and he used Gold Bond Medicated Powder at home and in the locker room from around the age of 13 on.
In its response to the mesothelioma claim against it, Whitaker, Clark, & Daniels acknowledges having sold talc to all of these companies but argued that it is speculation that it was their talc in the products that the victim was exposed to. They also argued that cosmetic talc does not cause mesothelioma, that he would not have been exposed to enough talc to have caused mesothelioma, and that the claim did not justify consideration of a punitive damages award.
Court Notes Multiple Issues to be Decided by Mesothelioma Jury
In reviewing the talc company’s argument against being held responsible for Mr. Campise’s mesothelioma, the court noted that summary judgment is a drastic remedy that should only be granted when the defendant can be shown that there are no issues of triable fact. In this case, they noted that the victim’s family had presented sufficient evidence through testimony of expert witnesses for the case to raise questions that only a jury could decide, and that the case should move forward.
As for the question of whether punitive damages would be appropriate for this mesothelioma claim, the court agreed that the company’s testing of its talc for the presence of asbestos as soon as they became aware of asbestos concerns supported their claim that there was no proof of recklessness or conscious disregard on their part. The punitive damages aspect of the claim was dismissed.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. For more information, contact us at 1-800-692-8608.
