When mesothelioma and asbestos lung cancer victims file lawsuits against those responsible for their illness, their attorneys warn them to expect the worst from the asbestos companies and those companies’ attorneys. Just as the companies put profits over people when they exposed workers to asbestos-contaminated products, they will say and do almost anything to avoid paying the compensation that justice deserves. A recent example found electrical manufacturers defending against a charge of failure to warn of the dangers of their products by pointing to the victim not having paid heed to the warnings on the packs of cigarettes that he smoked.
Asbestos Companies’ Denial of Responsibility for Asbestos Lung Cancer Points to Cigarette Warning Labels
The case involved Thomas Fahey, who died of asbestos-related lung cancer after having worked as an apprentice and union electrician from 1980 to 2015. Mr. Fahey and his survivors pursued legal action against Viacom and General Electric, alleging that the electrical panels and transformers that he had worked on throughout his career were insulated with asbestos-contaminated materials, and that there had never been warning labels posted about the hazards of exposure to the products. He said he was not aware of asbestos’ dangers until seeing ads on television and attending a class through his union.
In response to the asbestos lung cancer victim’s charges, the asbestos companies filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss all of Mr. Fahey’s claims. They argued that he had been a cigarette smoker and had failed to pay attention to the warnings about the dangers of cigarettes, and that therefore he also would have ignored any warnings that they might have provided on their products.
Cigarette Smoking Victim Denies Asbestos Company’s Assertions
In response to the arguments made by the asbestos companies, Mr. Fahey indicated that he had not been aware of the dangers of cigarettes when he first started smoking, and that once he learned of them he had tried to quit repeatedly but was addicted to nicotine. He contrasted that with the lack of warning on the products that he worked with, and said that he did not know what he would have done had he been warned of the dangers of asbestos – but that no such warning was provided.
The asbestos companies’ claims that they did not need to provide warnings about the risks of malignant mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer because the plaintiff wouldn’t have listened anyway were rejected by the court, which called the argument “speculative”. They also denied the asbestos companies’ request to dismiss the claim for punitive damages, which they called “unpersuasive”.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, you need to know all of the options available to you. For assistance, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608.
