Asbestos Company Attempts to Bar Testimony from Mesothelioma Victim’s Late Father

When Kristina T. Strong filed her mesothelioma suit against Honeywell International, she needed to prove that her late husband Matthew had been exposed to asbestos through the company’s Bendix-brand automotive brakes. She turned to her father-in-law, Terry, who testified to using the parts while doing automotive repairs with his son and in his son’s presence. But a year after Terry’s death, Honeywell moved to have his testimony struck, calling him an incompetent witness. Fortunately, the U.S. District Judges hearing the case rejected the asbestos company’ motion.

Witness in Mesothelioma Case Volunteers Information About His Early Onset Dementia

The testimony that Terry Strong offered in support of his daughter-in-law’s mesothelioma lawsuit confirmed that Matthew Strong had been repeatedly exposed to Bendix brakes.  He said that he had performed multiple brake replacements using the parts in his son’s presence and that as years went by, his son participated in the repairs. Terry also noted during his testimony that he had been diagnosed with early-onset vascular dementia within a month of his deposition.

When asked about his condition by attorneys from both sides, the mesothelioma victim’s father explained that his short-term memory had become an issue but that he had no lapses in his long-term recall. Honeywell made no motion to object to his testimony, but when he died a year later, they filed a request for his death certificate and medical records and requested exclusion of his testimony, arguing that he had been an incompetent witness. The widow objected to their request for the medical information and to the testimony being excluded.

Judges Reject Honeywell’s Motions in Mesothelioma Case

In reviewing the request to dismiss Mr. Strong’s testimony, the justices of the U.S. District Court sided with the mesothelioma widow, indicating that there was nothing to indicate that Mr. Strong had been incompetent and that had the company been concerned, they should have voiced their opposition at the time that the testimony was given and they became aware of his diagnosis.