Articles Posted in Companies & Asbestos

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as J.K.

In a recent court case, a Virginia jury awarded $3.45 million to the family of a deceased mesothelioma victim in a case against John Crane, Inc., a company known for manufacturing asbestos-contaminated products. The victim in this case, who will be referred to as J.K., died of malignant mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer that is primarily caused by asbestos exposure in 2022. After his death, J.K.’s family filed a lawsuit against John Crane, Inc., alleging that J.K.’s occupational asbestos exposure occurred while he was working with asbestos-containing products made by the company. Recently, a jury hearing the case ruled in favor of J.K.’s family and held John Crane, Inc. responsible for its failure to adequately warn about the dangers of its products.

During the trial, jury members listened to details about J.K.’s career as a millwright. For around 18 years (between 1961 and 1979), J.K. was a millwright at a plant in Chesterfield County. While there, his responsibilities included repairing and maintaining equipment such as valves and pumps. Unfortunately, when carrying out his tasks, he unknowingly inhaled microscopic asbestos fibers, putting himself at risk of developing mesothelioma. The jury heard evidence that over time, the wear and tear of the parts that J.K. repaired and maintained caused asbestos fibers to break free, contaminating the air in the workplace.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mr. B.Z.

In this case, a Utah resident, Mr. B.Z. Claims that his mesothelioma was caused by talc pleurodesis, a procedure that was meant to help him. Talc pleurodesis is a medical procedure that helps prevent fluid or air from accumulating in the pleural cavity. This medical procedure is for patients with respiratory issues such as malignant pleural mesothelioma. Many people have and continue to benefit from talc pleurodesis. Unfortunately, for B.Z., a procedure that was supposed to help him ended up causing him harm. According to Mr. B.Z., the talc used during his treatments in 2014 and 2020 resulted in him developing mesothelioma.

Over the years, many ovarian cancer and malignant mesothelioma patients have filed lawsuits against manufacturers and suppliers of cosmetic and industrial talc. These individuals have blamed these companies for acting negligently by failing to warn people about the presence of asbestos in their products and for distributing unsafe goods that can cause several health issues.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as P.J.M.

In a recent court decision, Justice Adam Silvera denied DAP’s motion for summary judgment despite them presenting affidavits provided by their employee. In this case, the family of P.J.M., who passed away due to mesothelioma, an illness that develops due to asbestos exposure, named DAP Inc. and others as defendants. The family blamed P.J.M.’s disease on exposure to several products that contained asbestos. DAP requested dismissal from the case by filing a motion for summary judgment. The defendant claimed it did not make or sell the products the family is blaming for Mr. P.J.M.’s illness. Despite DAP’s assertion, the court denied the petition and allowed the case to proceed.

Often, defendants in mesothelioma lawsuits and other asbestos-related lawsuits seek dismissal by arguing that the lawsuit is baseless. It is common for defendants to argue that their products were not involved in the plaintiff’s asbestos exposure. It is common for defendants to claim that their products could not have contributed to the claimant’s illness. However, in the New York County Supreme Court, such arguments are often denied because the bar for dismissal is high. Defendants are typically required to unequivocally establish that their products could not have caused the claimant’s injury.