Página actualizada el 17 de marzo de 2025

Mesothelioma Widow Pursues Lawsuit Against Auto Parts Seller

Página revisada y editada por

Abogado de mesotelioma Paul Danziger

A California court ruled in favor of Evelyn Chandler, a mesothelioma widow who is suing a retailer that sold asbestos-contaminated auto parts to her husband. Mrs. Chandler has accused the company and others of negligence.

Mesothelioma Claims Victim’s Life in Just Four Months

Mrs. Chandler’s husband Gail succumbed to malignant mesothelioma just four months after his diagnosis. In tracing his exposure to the asbestos she believes led to his disease, she found that Parts Warehouse and its alternate entity Lamus-Lundlee sold parts that were contaminated with the toxic mineral, and filed suit against the company and others that she holds responsible.

In response to being named in the mesothelioma lawsuit, Parts Warehouse filed a motion for summary judgment, pointing to what they viewed as a dearth of evidence that the parts that Mr. Chandler had purchased contained asbestos.

Judges Deny Asbestos Company’s Argument in Mesothelioma Case

Mrs. Chandler had submitted proof that her husband had purchased a non-asbestos-containing clutch from Parts Warehouse to support her claim that the mesothelioma victim had purchased parts from the business. The company then turned to that single item as proof that the mesothelioma widow lacked evidence of exposure to asbestos from anything that had been bought at their stores.

But the Superior Court of California of Sacramento County rebuffed this argument, noting that the mesothelioma victim had purchased parts from the company for years, and that Parts Warehouse’s expert witness ignored many other parts that the victim would have purchased or the years prior to the time period about which he testified.

The court’s decision to deny Parts Warehouse’s petition read in part, “This is not a case where a single asbestos-containing part was purchased from an unidentified supplier. Rather… Decedent used multiple brands, at least some of which were obtained through Lamus-Lundlee. Combined with evidence that all of the brands contained asbestos, this testimony may be sufficient to support a finding that Decedent was more likely than not exposed to asbestos-containing parts sold by Lamus-Lundlee.” The case will continue for a jury to hear.