“Passion or Prejudice” Question Raised by Asbestos Company After $20 Million Mesothelioma Award

Patricia Casey was awarded $20 million in punitive damages following the mesothelioma death of her husband John. The significant award came after the initial jury hearing the case could not decide on appropriate compensation.  The defendant, Kaiser Gypsum, filed an appeal of the decision, arguing that the large award was a result of either passion or prejudice, but the appellate court hearing the case determined that there were no abuses of discretion in either of the trials that were held.

Kaiser Gypsum Accused of Negligence in Mesothelioma Case

The original mesothelioma claim was filed against more than 60 asbestos companies that Patricia and her late husband filed before mesothelioma claimed his life. He had worked for decades as a plumber and pipefitter on multiple construction sites and cited exposure to asbestos-contaminated products that he had worked with or around.

Among the companies named in the mesothelioma claim was Kaiser Gypsum, and by the time the trial began it was one of only a few that had not already resolved the issue. Though the company defended itself against charges of negligence, the jury found them guilty, paying special attention to the fact that the company had taken steps to protect its own employees from the asbestos in their drywall product, but had done nothing to warn anybody else of its dangers.

Second Jury Awards Mesothelioma Punitive Damages

Though the first jury hearing the mesothelioma claim came back with a guilty verdict and compensation for damages, they were unable to agree to an amount to assess in punitive damages, and the judge hearing the case ordered a second trial. The second jury heard all the same evidence and concluded that $20 million was an appropriate punishment.

Though the asbestos company argued that testimony from one of their witnesses should not have been excluded, that the trial court had abused its discretion, and that the second jury should not have exclusively been charged with deciding punitive damages, the appellate court hearing their argument denied their appeal. The judges of the Court of Appeal of the State of California noted that the state holds that juries know best whether the evidence presented at trial is credible, and that their review of the trial court’s decisions did not expose any type of legal error. The jury’s award will stand.