Mesothelioma Victim Points to Asbestos Exposure While Working as School Engineer

The Supreme Court of New York recently denied the arguments of an asbestos manufacturer that was attempting to evade responsibility for a man’s death from malignant mesothelioma. The court wrote that pump manufacturer Milton Roy was attempting “to circumvent the standards of summary judgment” by offering testimony from a person with no knowledge of the actual facts, as well as by offering arguments before they were legally appropriate.

Man’s Mesothelioma Blamed on Asbestos in Pump Gaskets

The case centered on the mesothelioma death of Thomas N. Wixted. Mr. Wisted had served in several positions at the Suffolk State School in New York, including several years as senior stationary engineer. In that role, he supervised the removal and replacement of gaskets on Milton Roy pumps which his widow argues were contaminated with asbestos

In their motion for summary judgment, the pump manufacturer argued both that there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Wixted had been exposed to sufficient asbestos from their parts to have caused his malignant mesothelioma, and that the parts that they sent to the school did not contain asbestos.

Court Denies Asbestos Company’s Arguments in Mesothelioma Lawsuit

In responding to the asbestos company’s motions, the court noted the testimony provided by Daniel Stoffel, a fireman for the school who had said that Mr. Wixted was always present and supervising the work he did, which included removing asbestos insulation on pumps during gasket removal. The widow’s attorney noted that the company’s attorneys were inappropriately offering their argument at the wrong time in the court proceeding.

The attorney also noted that the testimony provided by the company about the absence of asbestos in their products was being offered by a company representative whose tenure with the company did not overlap Mr. Wixted’s time there, and that he could have no real knowledge of whether the mesothelioma victim had been exposed to asbestos-contaminated parts more than a decade earlier. The court agreed and the case will be able to be heard by a jury.