Patricia Casey’s husband John died of malignant pleural mesothelioma following a decades-long career as a plumber and pipefitter at construction sites. When the couple filed personal injury claims against more than 60 asbestos companies, most settled out of court, leaving Kaiser Gypsum one of the few companies at trial. The jury found the company guilty but could not decide on punitive damages, and the judge ordered a retrial on that issue. When the second jury assessed the company $20 million in punitive damages they appealed, but the appellate court upheld decisions during both trials.
Mesothelioma Claim Points to Bystander Exposure to Asbestos in Drywall
The original claim filed by the mesothelioma victim and his wife pointed to his exposure to asbestos dust raised by drywall installers who he’d worked in close proximity to. The jury in both the first trial and the retrial on punitive damages was told that Kaiser Gypsum’s joint compound was made with a significant amount of asbestos.
They juries learned that though the company took action to protect its own employees from mesothelioma, taking action to prevent their exposure to the carcinogenic material, they did not extend the same concern for customers who used their products. This was the basis of much of the juries’ decision regarding the appropriateness and size of the punitive damages award.
Appellate Court Denies Asbestos Companies’ Objection to Mesothelioma Trial Decisions
The company asked the appellate court to review and reverse the significant damages awarded to the mesothelioma widow, arguing that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the testimony of the company’s construction sequencing expert witness, that the second jury should not have only focused on punitive damages, and other areas of concern. The appellate court denied each of their arguments.
In its conclusion, the judges of the Court of Appeal of the State of California wrote, “The trial court is in a far better position than an appellate court to determine whether a damage award was influenced by ‘passion or prejudice’, and is vested with the power, denied to us, to weigh the evidence and resolve issues of credibility. We review the trial court’s determination for an abuse of discretion. Given the facts in this case and our previous discussion of the guideposts prescribed by the high court, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s decision to reduce the punitive damages awards amounted to an abuse of discretion.
If you or someone you love has been afflicted with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help you on your quest for information and justice. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 for information.
