Asbestos Victim’s Family Succeeds in Re-Opening Case

Ronald Callanan died of asbestosis after years of working as a field inspector for FM Engineering. Blaming his death on exposure to asbestos in Cleaver-Brooks boilers, his family filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company, seeking compensation. Though the company initially succeeded in having the case against them dismissed, the family members appealed that decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which overturned the circuit court’s dismissal and allowed the case to move forward.

Mesothelioma and Asbestos Victims Are Entitled to “Most Favorable” Consideration

When a mesothelioma victim or victim of asbestos exposure files a claim against an asbestos company, they are often hampered by the severity of their illness or the long period of time that has passed since their exposure to the toxic material. The court has established a standard that requires that summary judgment should not be granted without reviewing the case in the light “most favorable” to the victim. In Mr. Callanan’s case, the appellate court determined that the lower court had failed to do so.

The asbestos company’s motion for summary judgment had been based on a lack of direct evidence that Mr. Callanan had worked with their equipment. But circumstantial evidence was provided to the court by a colleague with identical job responsibilities, who indicated that they had each inspected hundreds of locations per year, with twenty to thirty percent of their time spent inspecting boilers. Because each man had been required to work independently neither of them had seen each other work, but he asserted that Cleaver-Brooks had been one of the “top manufacturers in the area” and that there had been a Cleaver-Brooks boiler at “just about every facility” they inspected.  

Court Reopens Mesothelioma and Asbestosis Cases When Decided Wrongly

As often happens in reviewing cases of mesothelioma and asbestosis, in light of the testimony from the victim’s colleague, the appellate court determined that the lower court had erred in granting summary judgment in the case. The judges allowed the family members to continue seeking justice.