Mesothelioma Case to Be Retried After Judge’s Decision Deemed “Unreasonable”

Imagine having a jury decide that an asbestos company is not liable for your mesothelioma based on a judge’s unwillingness to let them review essential evidence. That is exactly what happened to a Philadelphia widow who was seeking compensation in the death of her husband from the rare, asbestos-related disease. Upon review of the case, the judges of Pennsylvania’s Superior Court said the lower court had abused its discretion and that as a result the case would need to be reheard.

Jury Had Found All Other Mesothelioma Defendants Guilty

The mesothelioma lawsuit was filed by Colleen Schrader, whose husband Ernest had died after having worked for the E.I. Nemours DuPont Edgemoor Facility in Delaware for over 35 years. During that time he was exposed to asbestos from several different products, and she filed suit against all of them. Only one refused to settle out of court – Ameron International Corporation – and her case against that company was heard over the course of a 10-day trial.

A large amount of evidence was heard over a week-and-a-half by the jury, all pointing to the company’s asbestos-contaminated product and its role in Mr. Schrader’s mesothelioma. A key piece of evidence revolved around an Ameron employee who had specifically discussed the dangers posed by asbestos. When the jury was sent to consider the company’s liability they asked to see that evidence again, but the judge refused the request and told them to rely upon their memory.

Judge’s Denial of Jury Request Leads to Appeal and Retrial

When the jury deciding the mesothelioma case asked to see the single piece of evidence again, the judge remarked that he did not want to set a precedent that would lead to multiple evidence requests. Without that piece of information, the jury found Ameron not liable, even though they found all of the other named defendants guilty.

In consideration of Mrs. Schrader’s appeal, the Superior Court judges criticized the trial court’s denial of the jury’s evidence request. They wrote that it was a “manifestly unreasonable exercise of discretion” that they could not “conclude that the error was harmless.” The widow’s case will be heard again and she will have the opportunity to get the justice that she and her late husband deserved.