For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as R.M., and the victim’s husband as T.M.
After a person develops mesothelioma, they or their loved ones can file a mesothelioma claim on their behalf and seek justice and financial compensation from the party or parties responsible for the asbestos exposure. One of the first crucial steps before filing a mesothelioma case is identifying all the parties responsible for the asbestos exposure. Often, people are exposed to asbestos from multiple sources. Identifying all defendants is vital to ensuring that victims or their families can recover the maximum compensation. Also, identifying all defendants promotes fairness. It ensures that each party responsible for the asbestos exposure is held accountable. However, after identifying all the parties responsible for the asbestos exposure and filing a claim, it is not uncommon for some defendants to deny liability and request the court to drop them from litigation.
In a recent case, the judge denied a co-defendant’s request to be dropped from litigation. The defendant, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, asked the court to drop them from litigation on the grounds that the company they supplied the asbestos-containing materials to did not need any warning about the dangers of asbestos since it was a “sophisticated user.” The claimant and the other defendant opposed this action, and the judge denied the request.
About the Case
After years of laundering her husband’s asbestos-contaminated work clothes, Mrs. R.M. developed mesothelioma, which then resulted in her death. Mrs. R.M.’s family filed a mesothelioma claim against Avondale Shipyards, the company Mr. T.M. worked for and which the family blamed for Mrs. R.M.’s secondary asbestos exposure. The company tried evading liability using the government contractor defense, but the family prevailed. The government contractor defense argues that contractors supplying products to the government shouldn’t be held responsible for injuries or illnesses resulting from the use of products that meet government specifications. In response to this defense, R.M.’s family said they were seeking compensation based on Avondale’s failure to warn and enact safety measures. The judge allowed the case to proceed.
In the lawsuit, Mrs. R.M.’s husband, Mr. T.M., named several companies, including Westinghouse and Hopeman Brothers, as defendants. Mr. T.M. blamed these companies for negligently causing his wife’s mesothelioma. Hopeman Brothers acquired Micarta, an asbestos-contaminated, from Westinghouse, and then they supplied the product to Avondale. Westinghouse argued that the court should drop them from litigation because Hopeman was a sophisticated user and understood the dangers of asbestos. In its defense, Hopeman argued that the former executive who wrote a memo suggesting care in the use of Micarta was 23 years old at the time and was not fully aware of the dangers of asbestos.
In the end, the judge decided that whether or not Hopeman was a sophisticated user was something that a jury would have to decide. The judge also agreed with Mr. T.M. that even if Hopeman was a sophisticated user, the co-defendant still had a duty to warn the end user of the dangers of asbestos, and no such warning was issued.
Nationwide Mesothelioma Lawyers
If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced nationwide mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties to help pay for your medical treatment to help you and your family live a more comfortable life.