Former electrician Mr. Collin Bassier filed a personal injury lawsuit against multiple companies he blames for his malignant pleural mesothelioma. Specifically, he points to asbestos in the equipment that he worked near and with for his fatal illness. A boiler company named in his claim argued the case against them should be dismissed over part of his deposition testimony, but the judge hearing the case denied their petition for summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed.
Mesothelioma Victim’s Memory of Company Name and Actual Name at Issue in Lawsuit
The mesothelioma victim was diagnosed with his illness in January 2019 and served responses to interrogatories in April. He was deposed in May and August of 2019 and died in October 2021. During his initial interviews, he explained that he was born and raised in Jamaica and only came to America as a teenager. He worked at his stepfather’s business, Hamilton Heating, and AC between 1981 and 1984, removing existing residential boilers. He identified the boilers he worked with as Burnham Boilers.
Burnham Boilers filed a motion for the mesothelioma lawsuit against them to be dismissed because, under deposition questioning, the afflicted man said the boiler manufacturer’s company name was Burningham. They argued that this disparity was sufficient to warrant the case against them being dismissed. However, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County disagreed.
Judge Hearing Mesothelioma Claim Denies Boiler Company’s Request for Dismissal
On reviewing the facts of the case, Justice Silvera noted that the assessment of Mr. Bassier’s testimony needed to be done by a jury and that in his position any discrepancy between testimony and evidence on record goes to the weight of the testimony, and not its admissibility.
Justice Silvera also noted that the boiler company had made no attempt to meet its initial burden of proving that its products didn’t contain asbestos and could not have contributed to Mr. Bassier’s mesothelioma. He said that the conflicting evidence was such that a reasonable juror could determine that he had been exposed to asbestos-containing boilers and that could have contributed to his illness, and therefore there was sufficient evidence to preclude the claim being dismissed.
