Judge in New York Mesothelioma Case Clarifies Role of Punitive Damages
When a loved one dies of malignant mesothelioma, it is natural for those left behind to seek justice from those who exposed them to the asbestos that led to their disease. This is especially true if the entity at fault was aware of asbestos’ dangers, as happened in a case recently heard in New York: a family asked the court to consider extra punishment for the consequences of the defendant’s inactions. Though the asbestos company objected, the judge noted that this was exactly what punitive damages were meant to deliver.
Plumber’s Mesothelioma Death Blamed on Company’s Neglect
The mesothelioma lawsuit was filed by the widow of James Scheriff. Mr. Scheriff spent years working as a plumber, and his duties involved installing, removing, and maintaining asbestos-contaminated boilers manufactured by Burnham LLC.
The suit filed against the company sought both compensation for the economic and noneconomic damages imposed by Mr. Scheriff’s mesothelioma and punitive damages intended to punish the company for its failure to warn of asbestos’ dangers. The widow based her quest for punitive damages on proof that the company had known of the dangers that their product caused, yet had failed to do anything to protect against those dangers.
Company’s Objection to Punitive Damages in Mesothelioma Claim Shut Down
Burnham LLC filed a motion, asking the New York courts to remove the claim for punitive damages from the widow’s mesothelioma lawsuit, but Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County denied their motion. Though the company argued that the evidence against them was insufficient to justify punitive damages, the judge noted that that New York law established that those damages are appropriate when “the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome.”
He went on to quote a precedent-setting New York case that explained that “the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant for wanton and reckless, malicious acts and thereby to discourage the defendant and other people, companies from acting in a similar way in the future.” Based on the evidence that the widow presented of the company’s knowledge of the dangers posed by their product, the judge will allow her to continue her quest for justice.
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
