Conflicting Testimony in Asbestos Lung Cancer Case
Like many people diagnosed with mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer, Kenneth Nankervis had a long history of having worked with many products that were contaminated the carcinogenic material. He filed suit against several of the companies that manufactured those products, including air compressor company Campbell Hausfeld, LLC. Though the company insisted that his illness was caused by his cigarette smoking, the judge hearing the afirmar denied their request to dismiss the man’s lawsuit.
Man Blames Lung Cancer on Asbestos in Air Compressor Gaskets
According to Mr. Nankervis’ claim, during the years that he worked as a roofer, he was frequently close to Campbell Hausfeld’s air compressor gaskets. Like many others who have been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, his claim filed in New York City’s Asbestos Litigation docket accuses the company of negligence in failing to warn of the dangers of its products.
In response, Campbell Hausfeld pointed to Mr. Nankervis having smoked cigarettes as the cause of his cáncer de pulmón, despite studies that have shown that exposure to asbestos increases the risk for both lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma in smokers.
Judge Notes Remaining Issues of Fact in Lung Cancer Claim
When a judge in the New York City Asbestos Litigation Court is asked to dismiss a mesothelioma or lung cancer claim, they must weigh the evidence that has been provided by both sides to see where there are issues of fact that need to be determined by a jury. They also must assess whether the defendant who is asking for the claim to be dismissed has proven that their product could not have caused the plaintiff’s illness. In this case, Justice Adam Silvera determined that neither condition applied.
In ruling that the company’s attorneys did not prove that the gaskets in their air compressors did not contain asbestos, Justice Silvera indicated that a jury would have to decide whether exposure to the company’s products could have caused Mr. Nankervis’ lung cancer. “As conflicting evidence has been presented herein with regards to defendant Campbell’s manufacturing of air compressors utilizing asbestos-containing parts during the period of Mr. Nakervis’ exposure, issues of fact exist to preclude summary judgment. Moreover, defendant Campbell wholly failed to meet its burden to establish that its products could not have been the cause for Mr. Nankervis’ illness.”
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
