Page Updated enero 1, 2026

Objection to $5 Million Mesothelioma Verdict Centers on Question of Recklessness

Página revisada y editada por

Abogado de mesotelioma Paul Danziger

Donald and Linda Miller’s mesothelioma lawsuit against Kaiser Gypsum Company accused the company of acting recklessly. An Oregon jury agreed and ordered the company to pay the couple more than $6.2 million in damages. Though that amount was later reduced to $5.2 million, the company still objected to being held responsible, and appealed the verdict. Despite their arguments, the Oregon Court of Appeals allowed the jury’s decision to stand.

Mesothelioma Blamed on 1960s Exposure to Kaiser Gypsum Product

The mesothelioma victim and his wife blamed his illness on a variety of products to which he was exposed over the years, and filed suit against several companies.  With the exception of Kaiser Gypsum, the case against each company was either dismissed or a private settlement was negotiated with the couple.  

That left only Kaiser Gypsum to face the mesothelioma victim in court. The Millers pointed to the years 1966 through 1969, the years when he’d worked as a mechanical insulator in close proximity to the company’s joint compound. After hearing the evidence, the jury agreed that the company had been negligent in failing to warn about the dangers of asbestos in their product.

Kaiser Gypsum’s Appeal of Mesothelioma Verdict Denied

After the jury decided in favor of the mesothelioma victim, Kaiser Gypsum appealed, arguing that the jury’s decision was wrong based on the evidence that had been presented to them. They also argued that the judge erred in failing to order a directed verdict in their favor, and that mistakes had been made in the directions given to the jury about the term “recklessness.”

On hearing Kaiser Gypsum’s case, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that the jury’s verdict should stand, and that the compensation was rightly awarded to the mesothelioma victim. Their analysis concluded that the jury instructions had appropriately defined recklessness and distinguished it from intentional misconduct. They ruled that there was sufficient evidence that the asbestos in the joint compound contributed to Mr. Miller’s illness and allowed the family to keep the award.

This appellate decision underscores how difficult it is for amianto defendants to overturn jury verdicts based on recklessness once a full trial record exists. When jurors hear evidence that a company knew or should have known about asbestos hazards and failed to warn workers anyway, courts are reluctant to second-guess those findings on appeal. By affirming the verdict, the appeals court reinforced that recklessness does not require proof of intentional harm, only conscious disregard of a known risk. For mesothelioma victims, the ruling confirms that strong trial evidence can withstand post-verdict challenges and that accountability does not disappear simply because a defendant disagrees with a jury’s conclusions.