Posted by Shelly Albaum on Fri, Apr 30, 2010 @ 06:03 PM
Rhoda and Bobby Evans' $200M punitive damage award yesterday against asbestos pipe manufacturer CertainTeed may be a record for a single-plaintiff mesothelioma trial.
Perhaps the high award was motivated by a humble or sympathetic plaintiff, or perhaps by CertainTeed's aggressive defense, which attempted to place the blame for Rhoda Evans' mesothelioma entirely on Bobby Evans' employer, the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.
CertainTeed is a wholly owned subsidiary of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA of France. Saint-Gobain had 2009 revenue in excess of 37 billion euros.
According to the plaintiff's attorney, Bill Levin, of Levin, Simes, Kaiser & Gornick LLP,
"CertainTeed was fully aware that its products contained cancer causing asbestos, but chose not to warn about the risk for decades. It is our hope that the damages awarded will relieve some of Rhoda's suffering, as well as the burden of her medical expenses so that her life will be prolonged and she can continue to care and provide for her young granddaughter, who was orphaned only a few short years ago...We also hope that the punitive damage award will serve to make the community safer by making product manufacturers think twice before concealing dangerous characteristics of their products."
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Fri, Apr 30, 2010 @ 07:00 AM
A Los Angeles jury has awarded $8.8M in compensatory damages and $200M in punitive damages in Evans v. A.W. Chesterton, an asbestos trial against defendants CertainTeed and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP).
Fault was allocated 70% to CertainTeed and 30% to DWP, but the punitive damage award was only against CertainTeed.
Rhoda Evans contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers that entered Evans' home on the clothing of her husband Bobby, who cut asbestos pipes for DWP for twenty years.
The 12-person jury heard closing arguments on April 26, 2010.
In closing, plaintiff attorney Bill Levin argued that "CertainTeed is responsible because they sold a product containing a carcinogen without a warning. They absolutely knew that safer alternatives were available...There's a big difference between a corporation that makes a product and 100% knows that there's a deadly carcinogen -- the worst deadly carcinogen, crocidolite -- a company that knows that, and sells it anyway -- a big difference between that and a water district that's just trying to supply water service to a community."
Los Angeles City Attorney for DWP, Will Pirkey, argued that the DWP "didn't believe there was a risk to installers because that's what the manual said...There are line drawings of a worker who is using the various methods of cutting the pipe or handling the pipe. In each and every drawing...there's no mask. There's no special clothing of any kind. There's no gloves, no goggles, no hat. There's nothing..We did comply with those work manuals...In 1971, the manual came out again, what did it say? Use an electric power saw. It's ok. 1974, another manual comes out, what does it say? Use an electric power saw...We were never told that if you use a power saw, be it electric or be it gas, that there was going to result in unacceptable levels of exposure to asbestos."
According to CertainTeed attorney William Sayers, "with manual tools, you get zero exposure levels...[DWP] knew generally about the hazards, they knew not to use the gas powered saw...and the next year DWP started doing it. That's the evidence in this case...They were cutting safely until 1978."
CVN is webcasting the Evans mesothelioma asbestos trial gavel-to-gavel.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Tue, Apr 06, 2010 @ 12:59 PM
Evans v. A.W. Chesterton, an asbestos mesothelioma case involving CertainTeed and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP), is being heard before Hon. Judge Conrad Aragon in Los Angeles.
Rhoda Evans allegedly was exposed to asbestos, which resulted in mesothelioma, when she washed her husband's clothes. Her husband cut asbestos concrete pipes every day for the Los Angeles DWP, and as a result of this occupational exposure allegedly brought home asbestos dust and microscopic asbestos fibers on his clothes at the end of every work day for 20 years, starting in 1973.
Acccording to the plaintiff, the DWP did not know about the risk from asbestos, but the pipe supplier, CertainTeed, did know of the risk, but concealed that risk from the DWP to protect $40M in annual asbestos cement pipe revenue that would be lost if the DWP switched to safer, non-asbestos containing pipes.
The defense argued that the plaintiff's mesothelioma was idiopathic, and that CertainTeed acted responsibly, and took steps to minimize exposure by providing safety manuals to DWP, and that it was DWP that failed to ensure the safety of its employees.
A month before the trial, the plaintiff and the DWP reached a settlement, with the amounts due contingent upon the percent of fault the jury allocated to DWP, if any, including a minimum and maximum amount that DWP would pay.
CVN is providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Evans v. A.W. Chesterton asbestos trial.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Tue, Mar 16, 2010 @ 10:00 AM
CVN is pleased to announce our new Toxic Torts Video Collection, featuring 30 cases (see list below). Among the subjects covered are:
Accutane | Arsenic | Asbestos | DBCP
Dioxin | Lead Paint | Paraquat | Prempro
Tobacco | Vioxx | Welding Rods | Zyprexa
Here are brief summaries of just four of these cases, one of which resulted in a plaintiff verdict in excess of $200M:
In
Thomas v. Lincoln Electric, Welder Butch Thomas allegedly suffered irreversible neurological damage (Parkinson's Disease or Parkinsonism) from Manganese poisoning allegedly caused by toxic Manganese gas emitted by welding rods during the 1970's and 1980's. Thomas used welding rods provided by Lincoln Electric, Hobart, and ESAB.
According to the Plaintiff, Lincoln Electric admitted that they had known about the dangers of Manganese gas since the 1940's, but attempted to minimize the risk, rather than effectively warn. A warning label added in 1967 did not include the word "Manganese," and was not placed where the worker was likely to see it. The plaintiff asserted that this was a conscious, intentional decision to deny the worker his or her right to know.
Documents showed that in 1981 the American Welding Society knew that Manganese fumes were dangerous to welders even at low levels, and that safety warnings requiring "adequate" ventilation were ambiguous and did not reach the welder. Labels mentioning the word "Manganese" did not appear until the late 1990's or after 2000.
Turner v. Chevron was a wrongful death action against Chevron based on exposure to the herbicide Paraquat between 1973 and 1979. The decedent was a CalTrans landscape maintenance officer who sprayed Paraquat as part of his job, and died of pulmonary fibrosis (scarring of the lungs). The decedent sprayed Paraquat on numerous occasions over a number of years. His primary exposure was dermal (skin contact).
The plainitff argued that Paraquat is so toxic that one teaspoon was a lethal dose for humans, and that one-trillionth of a gram causes scarred lungs in rats. According to the plaintiff, more people have died from Paraquat than from any other herbicide, and no other herbicide causes pulmonary fibrosis. The plaintiff argued that Chevron failed to disclose known risk of chronic latent disease resulting from Paraquat exposure, and that safer alternative herbicides existed.
The defense argued that no person ever died from a Paraquat exposure, and the decedent was exposed to a toxicologically insignificant dose. Also, the alleged scarring would not have manifested itself only 20 years later. Instead, according to the defense, the decedent's plumonary fibrosis resulted from aspiration of stomach acid as a result of the decedent's gastrointestinal disorders.
Rowatt v. Wyeth involved an HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) products liability claim by three women whose breast cancers allegedly resulted from pharmaceutical manufacturer Wyeth's menopause treatment drug Prempro.
According to the plaintiff, Wyeth inadequately studied the combination of Estrogin and Progestin. Wyeth allegedly failed to do long-term studies, and ignored red flags that should have alerted Wyeth of a breast cancer risk when Estrogin and Progestin were taken in combination.
The defense asserted that Prempro was safe and effective, providing proven osteoporosis benefits at a very low risk. In addition, Wyeth conducted extensive testing for breast cancer risk. Further, Prempro was provided with adequate warnings. Finally, according to the defense, the plaintiffs' cancers were not caused by Preempro.
Ladner v. Dupont was a wrongful death toxic tort claim against Dupont based on a child who contracted liver cancer as an infant and died of liver cancer at age 11 after allegedly being exposed to arsenic and dioxin emitted by Dupont's titanium dioxide pigment plant.
The plaintiff presented video showing that Dupont's titanium dioxide plant had been dusty, and that the dust tested positive for large quantities of arsenic and dioxin. Because Dupont had claimed that its plant was not dusty, the plaintiff argued that Dupont had a negligent habit of routinely hiding the truth about the dangers of its TiO2 pigments plants from the public -- both how much Arsenic and Dioxin they were releasing, and how dangerous those chemicals were. The plaintiff also presented evidence that the plant manager had prepared comments for the press indicating that dioxin levels at the plant were low, on the same day he had received an email alerting him to the exact opposite.
According to Dupont, the dioxin release did not cause the decedent's cancer.
_____________________
These are just some of the Toxic Torts cases included:
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Wed, Feb 24, 2010 @ 11:35 AM
Judge Charles F. Kahn, Jr., informs the jury that the presentation of evidence will be completed today, and then closing arguments will begin this afternoon, in Kuhnke v Alfa Laval.
CVN is covering this asbestos-mesothelioma trial live.
UPDATE 1: Judge Kahn is instructing the jury prior to opening arguments. UPDATE 2: The case settled during closing arguments.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Thu, Feb 18, 2010 @ 10:00 AM
CVN is pleased to announce that our Asbestos Litigation Library now includes five trials: Roth v. Goodrich, Thacker v. 3M, Miller v. AW Chesterton, Rich v. Bingham, and Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval.
These five trials bring to practitioners a broad range of asbestos litigation issues, including:
- - Vocational and non-vocational exposure
- - High-level and low-level exposure
- - Lung cancer and mesothelioma
- - Pleural mesothelioma and testicular mesothelioma
- - Many different fiber types
Summary of each of the cases:
Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval
The plaintiff, who died of mesothelioma, was a carpenter who spent 33 years working at power plants and switching stations. He was also a steamfitter on Navy ships.
The plaintiff asserted that General Electric was uniquely situated to prevent the plaintiff's death. GE allegedly sold five turbines to the plaintiff's employer, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO), to be located at WEPCO's Oak Creek Power Plant, which was where the plaintiff did most of his work. The GE turbines allegedly were insulated with thousands of pounds of asbestos, including an especially potent form of asbestos.
GE also supervised the tear-down and removal of the asbestos insulation. According to the plaintiff, Mr. Kuhnke's exposure to the asbestos contained in the GE turbines was a substantial contributing factor to the plaintiff's mesothelioma.
According to the defense, Mr. Kuhnke had many asbestos exposures other than to General Electric power turbines. GE is the only remaining defendant.
UPDATE: The case settled during closing arguments.
Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval is in progress now. Opening statements were heard February 17, 2010, in Milwaukee County Courthouse.
Rich v. Bingham
The plaintiff-mail carrier's mesothelioma allegedly resulted not from vocational exposure, but from exposure to joint compounds in home improvement products that he allegedly purchased from hardware stores in the 1960's and 1970's to repair a recurring crack in the walls of his home.
According to the plaintiff, sanding the joint compound created fine asbestos dust that got into the plaintiff's lungs, and the defense expert witness could only find a different type of asbestos was involved by violating his own methodology.
Defendants, which include R.T. Vanderbilt, Kaiser Gypsum, and Union Carbide, alleged that the plaintiff's exposure to these products was not sufficient to cause his current cancer, and that some products were not sold at the stores where the plaintiff claims to have bought them. In addition, the types of asbestos found in the plaintiff's lung tissue allegedly did not closely match the fiber types used in the products the plaintiff allegedly used.
The jury returned a defense verdict, finding neither negligence nor the the delivery of a defective product by any of the defendants that was the legal cause of Fred Rich's illness. The case was tried in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Judge Patti Henning.
Miller v. AW Chesterton
Testicular mesothelioma jury trial based on occupational asbestos exposure.
The plaintiff was born in 1930. Starting in 1954, he spent 33 years working for the Lindmore Irrigation District maintaining pipes, including replacing concrete pipes with asbestos-cement transite pipes, which mostly were manufactured by Johns-Mansville in Stockton, and mostly relied upon chrysotile asbestos from Advocate Mines and Calaveras Asbestos.
He was diagnosed in February, 2009, as terminally ill from malignant mesothelioma in the tunica vaginalis testes, which had spread to a lymph node.
According to Advocate Mines, tunica vaginalis testes mesothelioma is a classic idiopathic ailment. With only 100 cases in the world, there is not enough epidemiological evidence to establish that asbestos causes it. In addition, the defense asserted that chysotile fibers were the least harmful type of asbestos fiber, and did not cause the plaintiff's disease.
According to Calaveras, its products came with warnings. Further, Calaveras claimed that its products were not dangerous unless used in such a way as to create dust, and it could not monitor how the product was eventually used.
The case was tried in Los Angeles, California, before Judge Terry Green. The parties settled while the jury was deliberating.
Roth v. Goodrich
Plaintiff's lung was removed due to lung cancer (not mesothelioma). Plaintiff allegedly was exposed to asbestos as a teenager in the late 1950's while working in the auto repair business at a Shell service station, and while maintaining his own 1937 Ford.
Defendants -- Dana, Ford, Honeywell, Pep Boys, and Pneumo Abex -- made and/or sold automotive products (e.g., gaskets, clutches, brakes) containing asbestos, which allegedly were not tested for safety and were not accompanied by any safety warnings.
Defendants alleged that the plaintiff's lung cancer was actually caused by second-hand smoke.
The case settled approximately one week into the trial.
Thacker v. 3M
Asbestos liability jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Plaintiff Robert Thacker contracted pleural mesothelioma from asbestos exposure in the 1970s, when he worked as a pipe fitter. The plaintiff died after the cancer spread to his spine and brain.
The remaining defendant was Weil-McLain, which manufactured boilers that contained asbestos. Weil-McLain argued that the plaintiff never worked around a Weil-McLain boiler. Instead, according to the defendant, the plaintiff worked only around larger industrial boilers made by a different manufacturer.
The case settled during the second day of trial.
_______________
CVN is covering
Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval live right now. Access to these five Asbestos trials may be purchased individually, or as a group. Subscribers to CVN's
complete research library will receive all of these cases, and hundreds more.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Wed, Feb 17, 2010 @ 12:37 PM
The jury in the Rich v. Bingham mesothelioma trial found no liability on the part of the defendants, R.T. Vanderbilt, Kaiser Gypsum, and Union Carbide.
Fred Rich was a mail carrier whose mesothelioma allegedly resulted not from vocational exposure, but from exposure to joint compounds in home improvement products that he allegedly purchased from hardware stores in the 1960's and 1970's to repair a recurring crack in the wall of his home.
According to the plaintiff, sanding the joint compound created fine asbestos dust that got into the plaintiff's lungs, and the defense expert witness, Dr. Victor Roggli, could only find a different type of asbestos was involved by violating his own methodology.
The defendants alleged that the plaintiff's exposure to these products was not sufficient to cause his current cancer, and that some products were not sold at the stores where the plaintiff claims to have bought them. In addition, the types of asbestos found in the plaintiff's lung tissue allegedly did not closely match the fiber types used in the products the plaintiff allegedly used.
The jury returned a defense verdict, finding neither negligence nor the the delivery of a defective product by any of the defendants that was the legal cause of Fred Rich's illness.
CVN provided live coverage, and you can also watch the Rich v. Bingham asbestos trial on-demand.
Posted by Shelly Albaum on Tue, Feb 16, 2010 @ 11:26 AM
Opening statements began this morning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before Judge Charles Kahn in the case of Kuhnke v. Alfa Laval. General Electric (GE) is the only remaining defendant.
Mr. Kuhnke was a carpenter who spent 33 years working at power plants and switching stations. He also worked as a steamfitter on Navy ships. According to the defense, Mr. Kuhnke had many asbestos exposures other than to GE power turbines.
CVN is providing live and on-demand coverage of this mesothelioma trial.