Malignant mesothelioma, the rare and deadly form of cancer, can strike anybody exposed to asbestos, whether that exposure occurs in the workplace or is carried home on a worker’s clothing. Last month the justices of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky reviewed a long-argued case involving a young woman’s mesothelioma death: Upon analysis, they reversed several previous court decisions and granted her family the right to continue seeking justice on her behalf.
Family Continues Pursuing Justice After Daughter’s Mesothelioma Death
The recently reviewed mesothelioma claim was filed by Paul Williams and his child on behalf of his late wife. Vickie Williams died of the rare, asbestos-related disease after having been exposed to asbestos carried home on her father’s dusty work clothes. Before her death at the age of 55, Vickie filed suit against the companies that had exposed her father to asbestos and included a claim referencing her own time working for the same company.
The defendants, Square D and Union Carbide, each filed motions for dismissal of the mesothelioma claim, arguing either that they had no duty to Vickie or that the case should have been brought as a workers’ compensation claim. After several hearings and reviews that first saw judges refusing to dismiss the case and later indicating that no duty was owed to Vickie and the case should be dismissed, the victim’s family appealed both the idea that no duty had been owed to her and a decision regarding the submission of expert opinions. At the same time, Square D continued arguing that the case should be dismissed based on workers’ compensation exclusivity.
“Bystander of Bystander” Characterization of Mesothelioma Victim Rejected by Court
In its review of the previous courts’ decisions, the justices of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky took particular issue with the trial court’s characterization of the mesothelioma victim as a “bystander of a bystander.” Though there had been questions about how much asbestos Vickie’s father had been exposed to at work – and therefore could have carried home – the court noted that Kentucky law clearly states that “duty is not predicated on classifications such as bystander or nonconsumer or nonuser.”
In its decision on the mesothelioma appeal, the justices noted that the state has established a duty of reasonable care to those that can reasonably be anticipated to suffer harm by one’s activities or products. They wrote, “Based on the evidence in the record, we hold that the danger arising from take-home asbestos dust was reasonably foreseeable by the late 1960s.” They reversed the trial court’s earlier grant of summary judgment and returned the case to be heard by a jury.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to support you in your quest for justice. For more information, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
