Mesothelioma Verdict Stands Despite Asbestos Company’s Appeal

Before Ben Viglietta’s malignant mesothelioma death, he and his wife Terri filed a lawsuit against Johns Manville and Hedman Resources Limited, accusing them of negligence, failure to warn, and reckless disregard for the safety of others in exposing him to the asbestos that led to his disease. After a jury awarded the victim $2 million in damages, Hedman filed a motion seeking a judgment nothwithstanding the verdict and an order granting a new trial. The New York Supreme Court in Niagara County denied this request.

Asbestos Company Argues Against Mesothelioma Verdict

Mr. and Mrs. Viglietta’s claim against Hedman asserted that his malignant mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to the company’s cationic fiber, which he was exposed to between 1974 and 1976 when he worked at a chemical plant. They claimed that the company had failed to provide adequate warning about the risks posed by the toxic material and a jury agreed, awarding a total of $2 million for past and future pain and suffering with 65% of the damages assigned to Johns Manville and the balance to Hedman.

Hedman filed a motion asking for the mesothelioma verdict to be discarded and the trial reopened. They claimed that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the victim had been exposed to a sufficient level of asbestos to cause his illness. They also argued that the court had made multiple errors regarding subpoenas, requests for jury charges, and more.

Court Rejects Asbestos Company’s Motion for a New Mesothelioma Trial

In its response to Hedman, the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Niagara concluded that the mesothelioma victim’s expert’s testimony satisfied the standard required to support causation of his illness. They also rejected the company’s arguments regarding jury charges, including that the trial court had made a mistake in failing to instruct the jury that fault could lay with Mr. Viglietta’s employer because their bagged product had originally contained a warning. The justices said that the failure of the trial court to tell the jury that this could be considered an intervening superseding act did not eliminate the causal chain that made Hedman responsible for his illness. The victim’s family will retain their damages award.