The California Court of Appeals has granted mesothelioma victim Kevin Brooks and his wife a new trial after a jury found that Mission Stucco’s products were a substantial factor in Mr. Brooks’ illness but also found that the company had no comparative fault. The appeals court granted a new trial to redetermine the apportionment of fault: The original jury awarded Mr. Brooks $2 million in non-economic damages and his wife an additional $3 million but in doing so, assigned 10 percent fault to Kaiser Gypsum and the remaining 90 percent to other entities, with 0 percent assigned to Mission Stucco.
California Jury Reaches Confusing Conclusion in Mesothelioma Lawsuit
The jury’s decision in the original trial was so confusing that the mesothelioma victim immediately moved for a new trial, arguing that evidence had been wrongly excluded, the damages award was inadequate, and the verdict was inconsistent. The court struck the first two arguments but agreed with the third and allowed a new trial to address that single issue. At that point, both the plaintiff and the defendant filed an appeal, with the victim arguing for a new trial to address all of the issues and the stucco company arguing against holding a new trial on the narrow grounds ordered by the trial court.
In its review of the trial court and its jury’s decision, the appeals court agreed with the mesothelioma victim that the jury’s verdict was “fatally inconsistent.” The justices said that the jury’s design defect finding cannot be reconciled with assigning 0 percent liability to the company, writing, “After concluding Mission Stucco’s products were defective in design under both tests, there was no basis for the jury to find that the defective design both was and was not a substantial factor in bringing about Brooks’s injury.” Though the asbestos company argued that the inconsistency did not matter because the victim would not be entitled to additional or different damages, the appeals court disagreed.
Appeals Court’s Decision in Mesothelioma Claim Offers Victim New Hope for Justice
In handing down its decision that a new trial was needed, the court opened the door for the existing damages verdict in favor of the mesothelioma victim and his wife to be reapportioned. The court noted that the asbestos company’s argument required accepting an inconsistent decision and called that “impermissible.”
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
