After her husband Eric died of malignant mesothelioma, Shelley Droz filed a personal injury lawsuit against Hennessy Industries Inc., accusing the company of failing to warn that use of their equipment could lead to exposure to asbestos dust. Though a lower court had granted the company’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence, the Delaware Supreme Court disagreed with that ruling, and allowed the case to move forward.
Mesothelioma Widow Says Company Had Duty to Warn About Asbestos Exposure
When Eric Droz died of malignant mesothelioma, his wife continued pursuing justice on his behalf. The couple had traced his asbestos exposure to his high school years, when he’d worked for an auto repair shop. They specifically blamed asbestos dust created when he’d used an arc grinding machine manufactured by Hennessy to resurface brake drum shoes that contained asbestos.
The personal injury lawsuit accused Hennessy of having known that its arc grinder would raise asbestos dust that, when inhaled, could lead to malignant mesothelioma, and of failing to warn of this risk as required by law. The Superior Court agreed with the company that the widow had not presented enough proof to defeat their motion for summary judgment, but the Delaware Supreme Court determined that the Superior Court had erroneously applied the standards required.
Court Decides Mesothelioma Widow Presented Sufficient Proof for Case to Proceed
In support of its motion to dismiss the mesothelioma lawsuit, Hennessy had asserted that its machine could have been used on products that didn’t contain asbestos. But the widow had shown that brake shoes from the three brands he’d have used were all made with asbestos, and continued to be until years after he no longer worked at the shop. The Supreme Court determined that this eliminated the possibility that he’d only worked with non-asbestos products, providing enough proof to warrant the case being heard by a jury.
In his decision allowing the mesothelioma claim to continue, Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr., wrote, “Asbestos exposure cases are beset with evidentiary challenges. The latency period before disease onset is lengthy. Memories fade about the circumstances of exposure. The plaintiff often passes away before litigation is concluded. These challenges are particularly acute when it comes to product identification—proving that the plaintiff was exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured by a specific defendant. The difficulties often surface at the summary judgment stage of litigation.”
If you or someone you love has been affected by exposure to asbestos, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. To learn more, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
