After “Fatally Inconsistent” Verdict, Mesothelioma Victim Gets New Trial
Calling an asbestos company’s argument in favor of preserving an inconsistent mesothelioma verdict “impermissible,” the California Court of Appeals agreed with the perplexed and frustrated plaintiffs that a new trial was required. The jury had decided both that Mission Stucco’s products were a substantial factor in the victim’s illness and that they had no comparative fault.
Mesothelioma Claim Points to Stucco Company’s Asbestos-Containing Products
The new trial was ordered in a case file by mesothelioma victim Kevin Brooks and his wife. The couple had filed a personal injury lawsuit against multiple companies that they blamed for having exposed him to asbestos over the course of his life. Though the jury agreed that asbestos-containing products made by Mission Stucco were partially responsible for his illness, they assigned the company no comparative fault, choosing instead to assign 10 percent of the $5 million verdict to Kaiser Gypsum and 90 percent to other companies.
In reviewing the award that the mesothelioma jury ordered, Mr. and Mrs. Brooks immediately filed a petition for a new trial based on the wrongful exclusion of important evidence, the inadequacy of the damages award, and the inconsistency of the verdict. Though the judges considering the couple’s motion denied the first two grounds for their appeal, they agreed that the verdict had been “fatally inconsistent” and that it was irreconcilable to assign 0 percent liability to a company that it had indicated was at fault.
Asbestos Company Argues to Uphold Mesothelioma Verdict
While Mission Stucco argued that the jury’s verdict should stand because the mesothelioma victim was still going to receive the same damages no matter who paid them, the appellate court said that was an “impermissible” approach. In their review of both the trial court’s actions and the jury’s award, they noted, “After concluding Mission Stucco’s products were defective in design under both tests, there was no basis for the jury to find that the defective design both was and was not a substantial factor in bringing about Brooks’s injury.”.
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
