Before his death in 2017, Thomas Phillip traced his malignant mesothelioma to the 28 months that he served aboard the U.S. S. Dahlgren. He filed suit against Crane Co. and Warren Pump, asserting that as a Navy fireman he’d been exposed to their asbestos-contaminated parts, but the companies argued there was no specific proof of his claim. Though a lower court agreed with the companies and dismissed the case, the Pennsylvania appeals court overturned that decision and allowed the case to move forward.
Mesothelioma Blamed on Asbestos in Navy Destroyer’s Valve Packing
Mr. Phillip blamed his mesothelioma diagnosis on asbestos he was exposed to between 1961 and 1963, when his duties on the Navy destroyer included replacing valves and pumps in the fire room. He described working in tight spaces and breathing in the dust created while scraping off old packing. But Crane Co. and Warren Pump both argued that the lack of direct eyewitnesses to him having worked with their parts meant that there was insufficient evidence to prove his claim.
In response to the lower court dismissing his mesothelioma claim, Mr. Phillip’s executor, Joyce Korol, appealed the decision. She’d offered testimony from three sailors who had served aboard the Dahlgren, one of whom recalled having seen Mr. Phillip in the fire room. He said that he had not personally witnessed Mr. Phillip removing packing, he added that doing so was a requirement of their duties. The other two witnesses confirmed that the parts onboard the Dahlgren were from Crane and Warren Pump.
Appeals Court Reinstates Mesothelioma Case
In response to the appeal filed by the mesothelioma victim’s estate, the Pennsylvania Court of Appeals issued a 17-page order that reversed the lower court’s decision. They said that the evidence presented was not “so clear and free from doubt” as to warrant having dismissed the case. “We conclude that [there is] sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact as to the regularity or nature of his contact with defendants’ products while he worked aboard the U.S. S. Dahlgren.”
While the asbestos companies argued that specific evidence was required to pursue a mesothelioma claim, the judges said that a direct eyewitness to asbestos exposure is not required in asbestos litigation. They said that courts need to draw reasonable inferences, and that circumstantial evidence can be enough to warrant a jury trial if it involves the existence of asbestos in the workplace along with the frequency that the victim would have been exposed.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, knowledge of the law and your rights are essential to getting justice. For information on how the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
