Mallory Ware worked as a welder for decades, and after being diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer, he filed a lawsuit in state court against several defendants. All of the companies named were accused of negligence, but some were accused of premises liability, and others were accused of product liability. Though Marathon Oil Company objected to the accusations against it and to being lumped in with the other defendants, a district court judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana shut down the company’s argument.
Toxic Environment and Asbestos-Containing Products, Equipment, & Machinery Blamed for Lung Cancer
According to Mr. Ware’s lung cancer lawsuit, he worked as a welder and hammer operator at various industrial facilities and on offshore rigs. He blames the toxic exposure he experienced from 1973 to 1989 for his illness, and when he added Marathon Oil to his original petition as a premises liability defendant, the company removed the suit to federal court and argued that he had failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief.
The oil company’s petition for dismissal of the asbestos lawsuit against it argued Mr. Ware had not provided sufficient facts to substantiate his claim and that his complaint represented what is known as a “shotgun pleading” because it lumped the claim against Marathon together with that of other defendants. In response, Mr. Ware argued that he had provided sufficient facts about his exposure to asbestos-containing dust and welding fumes while working at Marathon and that the company had provided no warning. The victim asserted that nothing more was needed at this point in litigation.
Judge Rules in Asbestos Cancer Victim’s Favor
In analyzing the arguments from both sides of the asbestos cancer claim, U.S. District Judge Darrel James Papillion agreed with the lung cancer victim. He rejected the assertion that the claim was a shotgun pleading and of insufficient grounds, noting that his complaint against Marathon cited the time period of his claims, the legal theories of recovery, and the remedies sought, as well as the activity alleged to have caused his injury.
The judge said that the complaint sufficiently describes the facts underlying the lung cancer victim’s claims for them to prepare an answer and that any other information they need can be illuminated by discovery.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with lung cancer or malignant mesothelioma after having been exposed to asbestos, the Patient
Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Call us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
