Long-Ago Work at World Trade Center Blamed for Man’s Lung Cancer and Asbestosis
After serving in the Marina de los EE. UU. from 1955 to 1959, James Petro embarked on a 35-year career as a steamfitter, never dreaming that his career would eventually lead to a life-threatening diagnosis of asbestos-related lung cancer and asbestosis. When he was diagnosed, he filed a personal injury lawsuit against dozens of companies whom he accused of negligently exposing him to asbestos-containing products, particularly while he was part of a crew constructing New York’s famed World Trade Center. After those asbestos companies were ordered by a New York jury to pay him $28.5 million in damages, they filed an objection and requested a review of the case, but the Supreme Court of New York County rejected their petition.
$28.5 Million Awarded After Asbestos Exposure Was Blamed for Lung Cancer
When Mr. Petro was first diagnosed with lung cancer and asbestosis, he filed a personal injury claim with the New York courts. Several of the companies that he blamed for having exposed him to asbestos agreed to settle with him out of court, but others opted to fight against the victim. A jury trial resulted in him being awarded $13.5 million in damages for past pain and suffering and another $15 million for future pain and suffering.
The Port Authority of New York was one of the defendants in the claim, and the agency objected to the verdict on multiple grounds. They argued to the Supreme Court of New York County that the asbestos-containing fireproofing spray that the victim blamed for his illness could not have been responsible for his exposure, because they had discontinued its use before his starting work at the World Trade Center, the victim’s attorneys showed that a different asbestos-containing spray had continued to be used.
New York Supreme Court Denies Asbestos Company’s Appeal
In reviewing arguments from both sides as well as the notes from the case, the judge of the Supreme Court of New York County who heard the case denied the petition, noting that the jury and trial court’s decisions had been appropriate and that the verdict that was awarded to the victim was reasonable and “did not materially differ from comparative cases.”
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
