Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Attorney

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

Mr. W.W. was exposed to asbestos during the 1960s and 1970s while working as a pipefitter and union welder for several plants. This was before the dangers of asbestos became known to many. Today, many people know about the dangers of asbestos and the role this substance plays in the development of fatal diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis. Many years after asbestos exposure, Mr. W.W. was diagnosed with mesothelioma. A month after his diagnosis, he filed a mesothelioma claim against four companies he blamed for his asbestos exposure. Later, Mr. W.W. added thirty more companies to his claim. In 2022, the trial court awarded Mr. W.W. $36 million in damages, with Mr. W.W.’s former employer, Level 3, being ordered to pay $19.2 million. After the trial court made its decision, Level 3 petitioned for a new trial, but that request was denied. The company then decided to file an appeal. In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit rejected the company’s appeal and allowed Mr. W.W. to recover the damages awarded.

After the trial court awarded Mr. W.W. $36 million in damages, his former employer, Level 3, filed an appeal on several grounds. The company argued that during the original trial, mistakes were made. The company argued that the $36 million verdict was excessive and improper. According to Level 3, the verdict was based on emotion, compassion, and a desire to punish. The company argued that the judgment was not based on the law. In other words, the company claimed that the verdict was an abuse of discretion. Additionally, the company claimed that the trial court assigned them too great a portion of the $36 million verdict. Level 3 argued that Mr. W.W. should not have been allowed to pursue a strict liability argument against them and that the trial court made mistakes in some of their decisions regarding the evidence presented.

Asbestos can cause many health problems, including mesothelioma and asbestosis. There are different types of asbestos, and all can cause health problems. People who have suffered asbestos exposure and developed severe health problems have the right to take legal action against those who are to blame for their exposure. Often, asbestos exposure victims blame their exposure on producers, bosses, and others who had the duty to protect them. The family of such a victim filed a mesothelioma claim against a general contractor who failed to uphold his responsibility to provide workers with a safe working environment. The defendant tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but the court ruled that the case should proceed to court and be decided by a jury.

After M.F. developed mesothelioma, a lawsuit was filed for his estate seeking compensation from multiple defendants. One of the defendants named in the case is Structure Tone, a general contractor. According to the lawsuit, the G.C. is guilty of negligence and violating NY’s Labor Law 200. Negligence claims in NY are based on a person’s duty to give the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would under the same circumstances. Negligence relies upon an individual having power over the action that resulted in harm. The state’s labor law in question here follows the same principles. In this case, the plaintiff claims that the G.C. failed to provide workers with a reasonably safe working environment and that the failure to provide a safe working environment resulted in asbestos exposure and, thus, the development of mesothelioma.

The general contractor filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that it could not have contributed to the victim’s illness. According to the courts, a party facing negligence accusations in a mesothelioma claim or another similar claim can have the case dismissed if they can unambiguously show they could not have played a part in causing the victim’s injury or illness. In other words, they can have the case dismissed if they provide evidence that convinces the court, without any doubt, that they couldn’t have contributed to the victim’s injury or illness. According to the G.C., M.F.’s testimony didn’t show he had suffered asbestos exposure at the locations he could remember working. The company’s executive V.P. also provided testimony that the company and its subcontractors hadn’t used asbestos-contaminated materials.