When Beverly “Dale” Jolly was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, he and his wife, Brenda, sued numerous asbestos companies, including Fisher Controls International, LLC and Crosby Valve, LLC. The case went to trial with only those two defendants left, and the jury found them guilty but ordered extremely low awards that did not reflect the damages presented in the testimony. When the judge hearing the case changed the verdict to a significantly higher number, the companies objected, but the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the trial court judge’s decision.
Man’s Mesothelioma Blamed on Work in Nuclear Plants
According to testimony presented at trial, Mr. Jolly’s mesothelioma was caused by having been exposed to asbestos during his job as a nuclear power plant inspector for Duke Power Company. His job responsibilities included overseeing a team that replaced gaskets and valves on large pipes in the plants and that used grinders and other abrasives to clean flanges and remove old gaskets. He testified that this work created dust that he inhaled, that many of the valves and gaskets he was exposed to were made by Fisher and Crosby, and that they were made of or contained asbestos.
When Mr. Jolly and his wife filed their personal injury lawsuit, they settled with many of the defendants for a total of $2,270,000. The jury found Fisher and Crosby guilty but only assigned them $200,000 for Mr. Jolly’s personal injury claim and $100,00 for his wife’s loss of consortium. The couple asked the judge to address this, and the judge increased Dale’s verdict to $1,580,000 and Brenda’s to $290,000, telling the companies they could either accept the increase or ask for a new trial. The companies appealed, and the appellate court affirmed; the companies then appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, which also upheld the decision.
Supreme Court Judges Explain Need for Reasonable Verdict in Mesothelioma Case
In their explanation of their decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court justices explained that a trial court has the authority to change the jury’s award or, if the defendants reject that, to order a new trial when the verdict is either inadequate or excessive. They distinguish that from a change when a verdict is “grossly” inadequate or excessive and therefore not based on the evidence and the law. Based on this, they found that the trial court acted appropriately.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease and you need help or guidance, call the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
