Mesothelioma Victim’s Family’s Appeal Leads to Earlier Ruling Being Overturned
Those pursuing justice for mesothelioma victims should be prepared for an emotional rollercoaster, as the legal process will present both wins and losses along the way. Though the family of Joan Smith was disappointed by a lower court decision in her second-hand asbestos exposure claim, the Court of Appeal of Florida recently reversed that decision, renewing their hope for a positive outcome.
Woman’s Mesothelioma Blamed on Exposure to Asbestos on Husband’s Work Clothes
Mrs. Smith died of malignant mesothelioma after years of laundering her husband’s asbestos-covered work clothes. He had worked as a mechanic from 1969 through 1993, specifically removing, repairing, and installing brakes on Mack heavy trucks. Those parts were contaminated with asbestos, and at the end of each day’s work, his clothing was covered with asbestos fibers that she inhaled when she shook out the dust and put the clothes in the washing machine.
The mesothelioma victim’s family pursued a personal injury lawsuit against several companies whose brakes Mack had purchased for use in their trucks, including Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction. But the company filed a motion for summary judgment that pointed to other third-party manufacturers whose parts Mack had purchased and asserted that there was no proof that Mrs. Smith had specifically been exposed to their products. The lower court agreed with this argument and granted the company’s petition to have themselves dismissed from the lawsuit.
Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court’s Decision in Mesothelioma Claim
Mrs. Smith’s family was certain that Carlisle should be included in their mesothelioma claim and filed an appeal of the lower court decision. They pointed to the overlap in years that Mrs. Smith had been exposed to asbestos from Mack truck replacement brakes and the years that Carlisle had been one of Mack’s authorized suppliers. The appeals court agreed that there was no need to prove that Carlisle had been an exclusive supplier: Rather, for the family to prove that the case warranted a jury trial, they simply needed to show that it was more likely than not that she’d been exposed to them. Because they’d met that bar, they reversed the earlier decision and the case will continue 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
