Samson Bareh is a former auto mechanic who was recently diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Faced with the reality of a devastating prognosis, he filed a personal injury lawsuit against the automotive companies whose parts he worked with on the grounds of strict product liability, negligence, and fraud. Though the companies asked for the case against them to be dismissed, a California judge denied their request on all but the fraud charges.
Mechanic Recalls Removing and Replacing Brakes from Manufacturers’ Automobiles
Mr. Bareh blames his malignant mesothelioma on asbestos contained in brakes sold and manufactured by Mercedes-Benz, USA and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. In response to his lawsuit, both companies filed motions for summary judgment, asking for the complaints against them to be dismissed.
In response to the auto companies’ petitions against being held responsible for the victim’s mesothelioma, the Honorable Judge Laura A. Seigle of the Superior Court of California evaluated the companies’ arguments, which largely centered on their assertions that they had stopped including asbestos in their brakes in 1988, and that since Mr. Bareh did not know the model and year of all of the cars he had worked on, he could not establish that he had replaced asbestos-containing brakes.
Judge Rejects Mesothelioma Victim’s Punitive Damages Claim But Allows Negligence Claim to Stand
In her review of the evidence submitted by both the mesothelioma victim and the automotive manufacturers, Judge Seigle agreed with the companies that there was no evidence of malice or fraud to support the victim’s quest for punitive damages. However, with regard to their argument about having switched from asbestos-containing to non-asbestos-containing brakes, she said, “Given that Samson Bareh started replacing brakes on …. vehicles in 1988, it is a reasonable inference that vehicles he worked on (at least in 1988 and a few years thereafter) had been manufactured before 1988 when [the companies] were still supplying cars with asbestos-containing brakes.”
She went on to say, “It is not a reasonable inference that all of [the] vehicles for which he replaced brakes in 1988 and a few years thereafter had been manufactured in 1988 and therefore did not have asbestos-containing brakes. It is not a reasonable inference that brand new cars would need their brakes replaced.” Based on that premise, she denied the dismissal of the mesothelioma victim’s product liability and negligence claims.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
