“Egregious” Behavior by Ford’s Attorney Leads to Reopening Mesothelioma Trial

Malignant mesothelioma is a devastating illness, and those left behind suffer tremendous emotional pain and sorrow. Even in the midst of adversarial court hearings, those mourners are owed respect and fair treatment, but an attorney representing Ford Motor Company in a mesothelioma lawsuit treated a victim’s son so unfairly that the judge hearing the case agreed that a new trial should be held. An appeals court agreed, calling the lawyer’s actions “deeply troubling and egregious.”

Questionable Legal Move in Mesothelioma Lawsuit Created “Tactical Disadvantage”

After an Illinois jury ruled in favor of Ford Motor Company in a mesothelioma lawsuit filed by Trudy LaFever, the judge hearing the case agreed that the auto giant’s attorney had behaved so egregiously that the widow should be granted a new trial.  Though Ford appealed this decision, the Appellate Court of Illinois noted that the lower court judge was in the best position to have made that decision, and that his decision would stand.

Mrs. LaFever had filed a personal injury claim against Ford following the mesothelioma death of her husband, Steve. The victim had worked with the company’s replacement brakes for years, and she accused them of negligence: she noted that though the company had warned its own employees and its dealers’ employees about the dangers posed by their brakes, they had failed to provide the same warning to others, including her husband. Mr. LaFever died of peritoneal mesothelioma, leaving behind Trudy and their son.

Mesothelioma Trial Impacted by “Skullduggery” Regarding Evidence

After the jury ruled in Ford’s favor, the mesothelioma widow appealed to the judge who had heard the case, asking for a new trial. Her request was based upon the auto company’s attorney having broken a previously agreed-to rule about the presentation of evidence. Both sides in the case had agreed about the presentation of evidence and documents, yet when Ford’s attorney interviewed Mr. LaFever’s son, he presented him with photographs that the son had not known about, catching him off guard and confusing him. The same lawyer also hinted that the victim had known about asbestos’ dangers from warnings provided by other brake manufacturers when that was not the case.  

Though the mesothelioma widow had requested a mistrial when these actions took place, the judge ruled against that option, but later agreed that what he called “skullduggery” warranted a retrial. After the appeals court agreed, the widow will have a chance to have her claim heard again in a fairer way.