Asbestos Company Fails in Effort to Overturn $14.6 Million Mesothelioma Award

Barbara Barr co-owned an auto parts and repair store for years, and her involvement in that business put her in constant contact with the asbestos that led to her eventual diagnosis with malignant mesothelioma. A California jury hearing the details of her exposure agreed that her illness was caused by the negligence of Parker-Hannifin Corporation and its successor Standard Motor Products, and further found that the company had acted with malice, warranting the assessment of punitive damages. Though the company appealed the $14.6 million damages award against them, the appeals court denied their motion and allowed the jury’s decision to stand.

Repair Shop Owner Diagnosed With Mesothelioma

Mrs. Barr’s diagnosis of mesothelioma came when she was 71 years old. The evidence submitted during the trial showed that she handled new brakes manufactured by Parker-Hannifin when they arrived at the shop and that she packed used brakes up to return them to the company. She was a constant presence in the service bays, where asbestos fibers from the brakes was constantly in the air and on the ground, but she was unaware of its dangers because while the company took actions to protect and warn its own employees, they never warned their customers of its hazards.

Court Rejects Asbestos Company’s Argument

Parker Hannifin’s attorneys argued that the jury had erred in finding them responsible for Mrs. Barr’s mesothelioma because her father had worked as a shipyard welder and might have carried asbestos into her childhood home. They also argued that they should not have been assessed punitive damages, claiming that they were being punished for their attorneys’ manner in court rather than for their corporate actions or inactions.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District Division reviewed the company’s appeal but denied their motion. They determined that the witness testimony suggesting that Mrs. Barr’s mesothelioma was caused by childhood exposure was insufficient to prove that theory and that punitive damages were assigned in response to the company’s failure to warn its customers of the dangers of their products. They upheld the jury’s decision.