Jean Castagna died of malignant mesothelioma, but before his death he filed a personal injury lawsuit against several companies that he blamed for having exposed him to the asbestos that caused his fatal illness. Among the defendants is Komori America Corporation, a printing press manufacturer. Though the company argued against being held liable for his illness and subsequent death, the Supreme Court of New York County rejected their arguments, determining that the questions in the case needed to be decided by a jury.
Printing Press Manufacturer Denies Responsibility for Man’s Mesothelioma
Though undergoing chemotherapy treatment for his mesothelioma, Mr. Castagna provided deposition testimony regarding his exposure to asbestos. He explained that he had worked at Martin Lithographers through the year 1988, and that during that time he had been exposed to the carcinogen from Komori’s printing presses.
In its petition to have the case dismissed, Komori pointed to the victim’s claim of exposure from 1980 through 1988, and argued that since they were not incorporated until 1982, they could not have created the printing press that caused his mesothelioma. They submitted an affidavit from an employee confirming the date of incorporation, asserting that their printing presses did not contain asbestos, and noting that there were no records of the company having sold a printing press to the victim’s employer.
Judge Rules that Questions of Fact Remain in Mesothelioma Claim
In reviewing the arguments from both sides in the mesothelioma lawsuit, Justice Adam Silvera noted several important weaknesses in the printing press company’s arguments. After pointing out the high bar that must be reached in order to dismiss a mesothelioma claim, he noted that the distinction between 1980 and 1982 was insignificant within the scope of the entire claim, and particularly because the victim was suffering the effects of chemotherapy while providing his testimony.
Moving beyond the issue of the date disparities, the judge noted that the company’s representative’s testimony had been insufficient to warrant the case being dismissed. He said that the company had provided no evidence to support the assertion that their equipment did not contain asbestos, and further did not provide any information about the records disproving the sale of the equipment forty years earlier. They also did not give any consideration to whether their equipment might have been sold through an authorized seller or third-party vendor. For all of these reasons, the judge decided that there were issues of fact that only a jury could decide and allowed the case to move forward.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
