Judge in Mesothelioma Case Calls Asbestos Company’s Argument “Unconvincing”
When a mesothelioma victim files a personal injury lawsuit against an asbestos company, they are blaming their negligence for having caused their deadly illness. If a jury agrees with the victim it can cost the company millions, so many defendants attempt to prevent the case from ever being heard. Though some do that by offering settlements, others file motions asking for the case to be dismissed based on lack of evidence. A recent case saw the judge hearing the case calling an asbestos company’s argument “unconvincing.”
Death of 82-Year-Old HVAC Technician at Center of Mesothelioma Case
The case was filed by the family of 82-year-old Benedict Silvestri, whose family blamed his 2021 mesothelioma death on years of work as an HVAC technician. Rockwell Automation, the successor to Timken-Detroit Axle Company, was among the many companies named in their lawsuit, but they filed a petition asking the courts to dismiss the case against them, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the family’s claim.
Timken-Detroit Axle Company had manufactured burners used in boilers, and the mesothelioma victim had provided significant testimony before his death describing his work with asbestos-contaminated boiler-related parts required as part of the installation of the Timken burners. Despite this, the company argued that they should not be held responsible for his death because the victim’s testimony had only referred to asbestos exposure caused by boiler-related parts, and not specifically to Timken burners.
Judge Denies Asbestos Company’s Argument Against Mesothelioma Liability
In his review of the burner company’s arguments, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York noted that summary judgment is a “drastic remedy” only granted if a defendant proves there are no questions of fact to be decided. New York law also requires that, when a question of dismissal is raised, a judge should always err on the side of the party that is not asking for the dismissal.
Based on both of these rules and the evidence Rockwell submitted, the judge denied their request. He said that their reliance on a single piece of testimony was “unconvincing,” especially because the rest of the victim’s testimony, which detailed work with the Timken burners, had been “clear and convincing.” He noted that had the company proven that their burners contained no asbestos or had not required asbestos-containing parts then the dismissal would have been warranted, but that argument was not asserted. The case will move forward to a jury.
FREE Financial Compensation Packet
- Info on law firms that will recover your HIGHEST COMPENSATION
- Learn how to get paid in 90 days
- File for your share of $30 billion in trust funds
