Judge Applies “Thirteenth Juror Doctrine” to Order New Mesothelioma Trial

When Jerry Crawford filed a mesothelioma lawsuit against Covil Corporation, the case seemed like a slam dunk. Not only was there strong evidence in support of his claim of negligence, but Covil’s blatant lies during the trial led the judge to explicitly inform the jury about them. Despite this, the jury found in favor of the asbestos company. In response, Judge Jean H. Toal invoked a little-used legal doctrine known as the “thirteenth juror doctrine” to order a new trial.

Asbestos Exposure from Pipe Insulation Led to Mesothelioma Diagnosis

The evidence and testimony that Mr. Crawford presented to the jury in support of his mesothelioma lawsuit pointed overwhelmingly to Covil’s responsibility. Not only did he talk about the dust raised by cutting the insulation for the steam pipes, but an insulator for the construction company at the site where Crawford work testified that the insulation had been supplied by Covil, and a Covil employee admitted that they’d sold asbestos-containing insulation.

The Covil representative also claimed that all of Covil’s sales information had been destroyed by a fire, but another employee contradicted this and said that the documents had likely been destroyed by another means. This led the judge to admonish the defendant and to order that the jury be told of the lies.

Jury’s Decision in Mesothelioma Case Leads Judge to Action

When the jury decided in favor of Covil Co. in the mesothelioma lawsuit, Mr. Crawford petitioned for a new trial and the judge agreed. Writing that “Under the ‘thirteenth juror doctrine,’ a trial judge may grant a new trial absolute when he finds the evidence does not justify the verdict,” she decided to apply the doctrine.

In her concluding remarks about allowing the mesothelioma victim a new trial, Judge Toal wrote, “Given the overwhelming evidence against Covil on the issues of Mr. Crawford’s exposure to Covil-supplied insulation, Covil’s knowledge of the danger and failure to warn, and Mr. Crawford’s injury and damages, the Court finds that the jury’s verdict for Covil was contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence.”

She went to write, “The Court exercises its discretion to act as the thirteen juror and, finding that the evidence does not justify the jury’s verdict, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial.”