In November of 2022, mesothelioma victim James McWilliams heard a New York jury order a valve manufacturer to pay him $35,000,000 in damages, including $23 million for past and future pain and suffering. The defendant, Jenkins Bros., filed a motion to order a new trial or revise a verdict they called “clearly excessive.” Last month a judge denied their motion, allowing the victim to keep the verdict the jury had thought was just.
Steamfitter with Mesothelioma Blamed Valve Company for Asbestos Exposure
Mr. McWilliams was first diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in September of 2018 and quickly filed a personal injury lawsuit against 46 defendants, but by the time of the trial, only Jenkins Bros. remained. The jury heard him testify extensively about his 36 years of steamfitter work with Jenkins valves, as well as from expert witnesses who spoke to the asbestos in Jenkins valves and specific causation, his past and future pain and suffering, and the reckless disregard that Jenkins had demonstrated.
In response to the testimony and evidence presented, a New York jury awarded the mesothelioma victim $35 million, $13 million of which was for 51 months of past pain and suffering and $10 million of which was for future pain and suffering.
Company Argues Against Mesothelioma Verdict That It Calls Excessive
In response to the jury’s award to the mesothelioma victim, Jenkins’ attorneys first argued that the evidence presented did not support the jury’s verdict and that a new trial was required, and alternatively that the award was excessive and should be reviewed and revised. In reviewing the facts of the case, Justice of the Supreme Court of New York Suzanne J. Adams first concluded that there was no basis for the court to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, noting that the evidence had been sufficient and the charge appropriate.
With regard to the asbestos company’s request for a review of the money judgment, the judge rejected the company’s request to revise the amount awarded to the mesothelioma victim. In her concluding remarks, she wrote, “It is not the purview of the court to second-guess a jury’s consideration of these factors in light of the evidence presented at trial, or to speculate, for example, that perhaps the jury has considered that the longer plaintiff continues to live, the longer he will suffer (including mentally) before his eventual death, and wishes to compensate him accordingly.”
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
