Repairman’s Death Blamed on Asbestos from Radios
When Kenneth Anderson died of malignant mesothelioma, his widow Thelma filed a personal injury lawsuit against Motorola Solutions Inc. and Zenith Electronics, LLC. She argued that the companies’ radios were contaminated with asbestos, and that over the course of his career as a radio and television repairman he had inhaled that carcinogenic dust. Both companies filed for and were granted summary judgment based on the widow’s inability to establish proof that their products were at fault for her late husband’s illness and death. An appeals court reversed this decision and permitted the case to move forward.
Widow Argues that Lower Court Should Not Have Dismissed her Mesothelioma Claim
In her petition to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, the mesothelioma widow argued that her husband had testified to having worked on both companies’ equipment. She noted that both Motorola and Zenith acknowledged that their radios had contained asbestos heat shields, and that those shields generally were not replaced throughout the life of the product.
Additionally, she pointed to testimony by an industrial hygienist indicating that cleaning the radios during repair would have generated significant amianto to which her husband would have been exposed. She also highlighted the testimony of her husband’s physician, who had asserted that the amount of asbestos the industrial hygienist estimated Mr. Anderson had breathed in over the years would have been more than enough to have caused his illness.
Court Agrees with Mesothelioma Widow, Reverses Summary Judgment Decision
In reviewing the mesothelioma widow’s argument, the judges of the appeals court agreed that there was sufficient proof of the companies’ roles, and overturned the granting of summary judgment. They noted that though the evidence was circumstantial, in total it was probative enough to create genuine issues of material fact that warranted being reviewed and decided by a jury.
This appellate ruling reinforces that mesotelioma plaintiffs are not required to produce direct proof of asbestos release from a specific product to survive summary judgment. By crediting circumstantial evidence, expert industrial hygiene testimony, and medical causation opinions together, the court affirmed that cumulative proof can establish a triable issue of fact. The decision protects mesothelioma victims whose exposure occurred decades earlier, when precise records no longer exist. For future asbestos claims, the ruling underscores that courts will allow juries to weigh reasonable inferences drawn from product composition, work practices, and expert analysis.
Paquete de compensación financiera GRATUITO
- Información sobre despachos de abogados que recuperarán su INDEMNIZACIÓN MÁS ALTA
- Aprenda cómo cobrar en 90 días
- Solicite su parte de $30 mil millones en fondos fiduciarios
