When Darnell Daniels was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, he filed suit against his former employer and the owner of a site that they leased, accusing them of knowingly exposing him to asbestos. Though the case was dismissed based on the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, an Illinois appellate panel overturned that decision, noting that the illegality of the original employment contract between Mr. Daniels and his employer nullified the contract and made it unenforceable.
Mesothelioma Widow Appealed Dismissal of Complaint
Though Mr. Daniels died of his mesothelioma, his wife continued to pursue justice on his behalf. She appealed the decision that threw out claims against American Bare Conductor Inc. (ABC) and Sycamore Industrial Park Associates (SIPA) in hopes that the lower court’s decision that his claims were barred by the state’s workers compensation law would be overturned.
According to evidence presented to the court, in 1996 ABC hired Mr. Daniels as a temporary worker, and ordered him to remove debris containing asbestos. They did not inform him of its dangers and did not provide him with any training, instruction or equipment to minimize his exposure or to protect his health. This made the contract illegal. Further, the work was done at the request of SIPA, and the property company had required that ABC have the work done as cheaply as possible, without obtaining permits or using professionals despite knowing that there was asbestos present.
Mesothelioma Victim Had Been Unaware of Asbestos Dangers
In making its determination that ABC could not evade liability for Mr. Daniels’ mesothelioma, the panel wrote, “ABC did not tell Daniels that such work was illegal, hazardous, and injurious. ABC intentionally determined not to provide him with the information, instruction, and equipment needed to reduce or eliminate his exposure to and inhalation of asbestos. ABC specifically intended that Daniels, an uninformed temporary worker, would be medically compromised as a consequence of unprotected exposure to asbestos, because protecting or informing him would have jeopardized ABC’s plan to perform the project as cheaply as possible.”
With regards to SIPA’s role in the man’s mesothelioma, the panel wrote, “The allegations indicate that SIPA knew that there was a dangerous condition — asbestos — on its property and that the asbestos would injure anyone who encountered it. Although ABC also had this knowledge, SIPA knew that ABC would not share this information with Daniels because SIPA and ABC were related entities and SIPA had directed ABC not to inform him.”
If you or someone you love was harmed by asbestos, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
