Despite objections from two forklift companies, a mesothelioma claim filed by the widow of a Navy veteran will be able to proceed. Patricia Elizabeth Smeal blames asbestos within the forklifts’ brakes for her husband’s death from the rare asbestos-related disease.
Mesothelioma Victim Testified Before His Death
In deposition testimony provided before his death from malignant mesothelioma, Gordon Smeal explained that after he left the U.S. Navy, he spent 32 years working at the New Cumberland Army Depot. Most of his time was spent as a tools and parts attendant, working in a caged area 10-15 feet away from where forklift mechanics sanded the machinery’s brakes and used air hoses to remove dirt. He indicated that there were always twenty or more mechanics doing the work near him, and that the forklifts were manufactured by Hyster, Clark, and Yale.
Though he never personally worked on the forklifts, the mesothelioma victim testified that he’d endured multiple distinct exposures to the asbestos in both new and used brake and clutch components. He’s been responsible for unboxing the brake shoes and linings. He noted there had been dust on and in the boxes when he opened them, as well as that raised by the work. He particularly remembered the use of air hoses to blow dirt off of the parts. This went on five days a week, eight hours a day. Mr. Smeal also had to walk through the maintenance area regularly, and handled old parts that would need to be shipped elsewhere.
Asbestos Companies Object to Mesothelioma Victim’s Claim
Despite significant supporting document that the Army Depot had a massive forklift fleet that included their forkliftsm and each companies’ acknowledgement that their equipment contained asbestos brakes, the asbestos companies moved for the widow’s mesothelioma claim against them to be dismissed. They argued variously that Mr. Smeal had no direct knowledge of their brakes containing asbestos, that he could not remember how many of their forklifts were present or the model or serial numbers of the forklifts that had been worked on, and that he had not provided sufficient expert evidence to demonstrate causation because his work cage was ten-to-15 feet away from the forklift maintenance area, while the expert witness had only testified regarding a distance of 5-10 feet.
In ruling on the case, District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg denied the asbestos companies’ motion and said that their argument “unnecessarily splits hairs.” He said that the mesothelioma victim’s testimony as well as that of the expert witness had been sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact and that the case should proceed to a jury.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
