Woman’s Mesothelioma Blamed on Asbestos in Bowling Accessory
A California court has denied a bowling accessory company’s attempt to evade responsibility for a woman’s mesothelioma. Though Master Industries Worldwide argued that they weren’t a legal entity in the years that Debra Manns had been exposed to asbestos in their product, the victim’s family pointed to the company’s advertising to convince the court otherwise.
Asbestos in Easy Slide Bowling Product Blamed for Woman’s Mesothelioma
Debra Manns enjoyed bowling and never dreamed her use of a product called Easy Slide would eventually lead to her death from mesothelioma. But the product, a shoe conditioner designed to keep bowlers’ shoes from sticking, was made with asbestos, and years later she was diagnosed with the rare and deadly cancer.
When her family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against several companies they blamed for her mesothelioma, they included Master Industries among the defendants. The company responded by filing a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, saying that because Mrs. Manns’ exposure had occurred years before they’d become a legal entity in 2011, they could not be held responsible. They said that their business was not a continuation of the previous company, whose name they had assumed.
Company’s Own Advertising Defeats its Defense Against Mesothelioma Liability
Though Master Industries argued that they hadn’t sold or manufactured the product until after the mesothelioma victim’s exposure and therefore shouldn’t be responsible, the woman’s family noted that they were selling the same product made by the company they’d purchased and that they were successor-in-interest to that company. They presented the company’s own advertising boasting that they’d been in business for fifty years and including photos dating back years before the time they were arguing was the start of their business operations.
The judge hearing the case agreed with the mesothelioma victim’s family, noting that the company had continued the brand name, sold the same product to the same customers, used the same facility, and retained the same employees. He said that Master Industries, Inc. and the company that it had purchased had benefited from doing business in California and therefore there was not question of jurisdiction, and that in purchasing the original company Master Industries had assumed its predecessor’s liabilities. The petition to have the case dismissed was denied.
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
