Safe Work Space at Issue in Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Mario Ferrari was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma following years of exposure to asbestos. When his son filed a personal lawsuit on behalf of his parents’ estate, he named a general contractor called Structure Tone as a defendant, accusing the company of negligence in the way that they had managed the carcinogenic material on their work sites. In petitioning the court to have the case against them dismissed, the company argued that they’d never used asbestos-contaminated products, but their executive’s testimony on the subject was later proven to be insufficient to support summary judgment.

Worksite Asbestos Blamed for Malignant Mesothelioma

The lawsuit filed by the mesothelioma victim’s son accused Structure Tone of negligence in maintaining a safe work environment. Mr. Ferrari had provided deposition testimony that he had worked on twenty to thirty different job sites under the company’s control, and had breathed in asbestos dust that its employees and subcontractors had created while sweeping up the remnants of asbestos-contaminated insulation and joint compound.  He charged the company with negligently failing to provide a safe work environment.

In response to the mesothelioma lawsuit, the company first wrongly asserted that Mr. Ferrari had indicated he had only worked on two sites with Structure Tone employees and that no asbestos was used there. In fact, it was later shown that he’d said that those two sites were the only ones for which he could remember addresses, but that he had worked on dozens of sites that Structure Tone had controlled, and where he remembered asbestos being swept up.

Company’s Executive Provides Insufficient Testimony to Have Case Dismissed

In addition to getting the facts of Mr. Ferrari’s testimony wrong, Structure Tone submitted erroneous testimony from their own company executive in the mesothelioma lawsuit. While John T. White asserted that Structure Tone could not have been responsible for Mr. Ferrari’s illness because no asbestos had ever been used on their site by any of their employees or subcontractors, careful cross examination revealed that he had never asked any of their subcontractors whether they’d used asbestos-containing materials, thus raising a significant issue of fact. The case will move forward for a jury to decide.