Before it was known that asbestos exposure could lead to malignant mesothelioma, the U.S. government required that the toxic mineral be used in many of its military applications. As a result, countless shipyard workers, as well as members of the U.S. Armed Forces, were sickened by the rare and fatal disease. Today many of those victims are seeking justice by filing suit against the companies whose asbestos-contaminated products are responsible for their illnesses. Those companies frequently try to evade responsibility by pointing to their role as government contractors, but that strategy does not always work.
Woman’s Mesothelioma Caused by Asbestos Carried Home on Husband’s Clothing
In a case being heard in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, Linda Crossland filed a mesothelioma suit against Avondale Shipyards and others. She claims that they negligently failed to warn her husband, who worked in the shipyards in the early 1970s, about the hazards of asbestos or to provide him “with safe premises in order to protect her life, health, safety, and welfare.” As a result, she says he carried the carcinogen into their home on his clothing each day after work, leading to her fatal diagnosis.
Avondale Shipyards and Hopeman Brothers, a joiner responsible for installing asbestos-containing bulkheads on the vessels on which the mesothelioma victim’s husband worked, filed a motion to remove the action to federal court, arguing that its actions had been under the orders of an officer of the United States. Military contractors often seek to remove proceedings to federal court, where juries are more forgiving of their actions and more robust legal protections exist to shield them from negligence claims. Mrs. Crossland filed a motion for summary judgment to stop her case from being removed to federal court.
Judge Denies Motion to Remove Mesothelioma Claim to Federal Court
In her review of the mesothelioma victim’s petition, District Judge Sarah S. Vance granted summary judgment and stopped the removal of the case to federal court. She noted that there was nothing to support the companies’ claim that the government’s lack of asbestos-related warnings was intentional or that its workplace safety policies were “baked into the government’s discretionary decisions.”
In her concluding remarks, Judge Vance noted that the mesothelioma victim was not trying to impose liability on the companies for complying with government directives, but rather to hold them liable for choosing “not to warn employees of the dangers of asbestos or put other measures in place to prevent the spread of asbestos.” The case will remain in the district court and move on for a jury to hear and decide.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, you need support and guidance from people with extensive knowledge of the law. To see how the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
