Asbestos & Mesothelioma Law Blog

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mrs. S.R., and the victim’s daughter will be referred to as Mrs. H.F.

In a recent case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania rejected the appeal of AII, one of the defendants in the original mesothelioma case, and affirmed a $400,000 compensation award. However, instead of assigning AII half of the verdict, the court distributed liability among AII and two other defendants. Below is more on this case.

In 2019, Mrs. S.R. died of malignant mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer that forms in the lining of the chest or abdomen, whose prognosis is often poor. This illness is most commonly associated with asbestos exposure. Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in several industries due to its attractive qualities. After Mrs. S.R.’s death, her daughter H.F. filed a legal claim against the entities she blamed for her mother’s illness. Mrs. H.F. blamed her mother’s mesothelioma on the talcum powders she used in her salon between the 60’s and 80’s. According to the lawsuit, the talc in the powders contained asbestos. The lawsuit named several defendants, including the manufacturers of Jean Nate, Jeris, and Clubman and AII, the successor to Clubman.

For purposes of this article, the victims in this case will be referred to as K.L. and P.J.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer that takes the lives of many people every year. Surviving loved ones of people who die from mesothelioma are usually left dealing with intense grief and loss. While filing a wrongful death claim cannot undo what has already happened, filing this claim serves several crucial purposes. Filing a wrongful death claim ensures that those who contributed to the asbestos exposure that led to the death are held liable. A wrongful death claim can provide financial support to surviving family members. Additionally, by pursuing a wrongful death claim, surviving family members can contribute to the prevention of future harm.

However, pursuing legal action after a loved one dies from mesothelioma can be a daunting and emotionally draining process. Therefore, the idea of joining mesothelioma claims can be very appealing. Asbestos companies do not like it when people join mesothelioma claims since two claims carry more weight than one. Asbestos companies fight to prevent claimants from joining forces. However, a recent ruling by a New York judge has allowed two mesothelioma cases to be joined, paving the way for mesothelioma victims and their loved ones to consolidate their claims.

Being diagnosed with mesothelioma is traumatic enough. The last thing a claimant in a mesothelioma lawsuit wants is for the judge presiding over their case to declare a mistrial and for things to go back to square one. Unfortunately, while mistrials in mesothelioma lawsuits do not happen a lot, a mistrial can happen. In this article, we discuss what a mistrial is, what can cause a mistrial, and what happens after a mistrial.

What is a Mistrial?

A mistrial arises when a court case is ended before its conclusion. Generally, a mistrial occurs if a lawsuit is not presented properly or the trial is not fair. A mistrial is typically declared by the judge presiding over the case. A judge has the authority to decide to declare a mistrial if the situation warrants a mistrial. A mistrial in a mesothelioma case can cause emotional strain, financial uncertainty, and delays in justice. However, a mistrial in a mesothelioma case does not necessarily mean that justice will not be served. It does not necessarily mean that the claimant will not recover compensation.

For purposes of this article, the deceased victim, in this case, will be referred to as Mr. C.B., and his surviving spouse as Mrs. M.B.

In a recent court decision, a South Carolina jury awarded a mesothelioma widow $1.75 million in compensation. The jury’s decision held the defendant, John Crane, Inc., accountable for negligence in the mesothelioma victim’s untimely death.

The mesothelioma victim’s widow, Mrs. M.B., filed a claim against John Crane, Inc., and accused the company of having irresponsibly exposed her late husband, Mr. C.B., to asbestos-contaminated gaskets when he was working at the Celanese factory in the maintenance department. According to the widow, the gaskets that were used in Celanese’s processes only lasted for a short time before wearing out. After they wore out, the gaskets would be taken to Mr. C.B.’s department, where their residue would be scraped off to allow for the installation of new gaskets. It was during this process that Mr. B would inhale the asbestos dust, which later led to the development of his illness.