Asbestos Mesothelioma Cancer Case Joining Multiple Plaintiffs Into One
Trial*
Summary:
This is an asbestos mesothelioma cancer case
review. The lawsuit originated after twelve plaintiffs, including named
Executors of
several deceased plaintiffs, contended their exposure to asbestos over
prolonged periods of time resulted in serious bodily
injury and
death.
All
twelve plaintiffs contended they contracted asbestos cancer
while working at their respective jobs for the defendant.
The defendant
corporation disputed the plaintiffs' allegations by contending the
injuries and deaths of the plaintiffs occurred over a fifty year time
span and as such amounted to only .09 percent of the defendant's entire
workforce during that same period.
Statement of Facts...
The twelve plaintiffs worked for the defendant
Nationwide Standard
at four of Nationwide's six warehouses. The plaintiffs were employed by
Nationwide over a period of fifty years. Although nine of the
plaintiffs worked
at essentially the same jobs, none of them was
employed by Nationwide during the same period of time. Of the
remaining three plaintiffs none were employed by Nationwide at the same
warehouse or at the same type of job during the same period of time.
Medical evidence at trial confirmed each of the
twelve plaintiffs
was either suffering from the asbestos mesothelioma cancer, or had died
from the
disease. The ages of the plaintiffs ranged from 42 to 64 years.
The Trial...
Before the start of the trial, Nationwide's
attorneys, sensing the
highly prejudicial effect the wheelchairs, autopsies, and other very
graphic testimony from the plaintiffs and their families would have on
the jury, filed a Motion for a Change of Venue.
In its Motion, Nationwide argued the plaintiffs'
appearances in
wheelchairs with oxygen tanks attached, along with the plaintiffs'
families emotional testimony would not be probative, but instead would
be unfairly prejudicial. Nationwide's attorneys
requested the trial be
moved upstate approximately 110 miles from the county in which the
lawsuit was presently filed. The court denied the Motion.
During trial the plaintiffs' attorneys
collectively called over 34
witnesses. The trial lasted for over four months. During that time
numerous medical experts were called to testify for the plaintiffs.
Their testimony was essentially the same; that each plaintiff was
either presently suffering from asbestos mesothelioma cancer or had
died from the complications of the disease. The experts also testified
that the asbestos located in the plaintiffs' work environment at
Nationwide directly and proximately caused their injuries and death.
The trial included the emotional testimony of
family members who
identified the deceased in open Court together with stories of their
prolonged
and painful deaths. The testimony also came from several
plaintiffs who spoke with great discomfort from their wheelchairs. The
testimony recounted the financial hardships many of the plaintiffs and
their families were suffering.
Each living plaintiff confirmed the presence of
asbestos in the
workplace at Nationwide.
Nationwide
offered the following evidence in their defense, through
witness testimony and certified business records. That testimony
including the following:
- The plaintiffs did not share a common work site
or even common
types of work.
- The plaintiffs did not share common occupations.
- The plaintiffs' alleged their exposure to the
asbestos occurred
over a period spanning over fifty years, from 1959 through
2010.
- During that period of time none of the
plaintiffs were exposed to
asbestos for an equal amount of time.
- The testimony of the defendant's family members
was similar,
cumulative, and unnecessarily compounding.
- The plaintiffs were unable to show with any
identifiable
certainty a manner in which the asbestos caused mesothelioma cancer
to each of them.
- The plaintiffs constituted only .09 percent of
the number of
workers employed by Nationwide over the fifty year period in which
the plaintiffs individually and collectively asserted they had
contracted asbestos mesothelioma cancer.
Outcome...
The jury deliberated for 8 days. During that time
they asked the
court for parts of the testimony of various doctors,
asbestos
specialists and three of the plaintiffs. They also asked for various
exhibits which were admitted into testimony.
In the Jury
Charge the Court instructed the jury to consider the
following questions while deliberating on their verdict:
- Did the any or all of the plaintiffs
share a common
worksite?
- Were any or all of the plaintiffs
involved in similar
occupations?
- Were any or all of the plaintiffs
exposed to asbestos
for a
similarly identifiable period of time?
- Did any or all of the plaintiffs
suffer from the same type of asbestos mesothelioma cancer?
- Was the plaintiffs' cancer caused by
the defendant
Nationwide?
- If the cancer was caused by
Nationwide's actions, which of
plaintiffs' injuries or deathes were caused by the asbestos on
Nationwide's property?
- Were the injuries and deaths
identified a direct and
proximate result of the defendant Nationwide's negligence?
On the eighth day the jury returned its verdict. They found as
follows:
- As to question number 1, we find all
plaintiffs shared a
common worksite and that worksite was the property of the defendant
Nationwide.
- As to question number 2, we find all
plaintiffs were engaged
in similar occupations.
- As to question number 3, we are
unable to determine if any of
the plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos for a similarly
identifiable period of time.
- As to question number 4, we find all
plaintiffs suffered from
the same type of asbestos
cancer.
- As to question number 5, we find the
cause of the plaintiffs'
cancer to have been caused by the defendant Nationwide.
- As to question number 6, we find all
of the plaintiffs'
injuries were caused from the asbestos located on the defendant
Nationwide's property.
- As to question number 7, we find the
injuries and deaths of
all plaintiffs were a direct and proximate result of the defendant
Nationwide's negligence.
The
jury went
on to award specific amounts to each of the twelve
plaintiffs. The estates of the deceased plaintiffs were
awarded an
average of $413,000, while living plaintiffs received an average of
$742,000 each. The total amount of the award was $13,532,000.
Important
Points...
- Because of their expense and
complexity, asbestos cases are often
tried in "units". Those units are normally comprised of
multiple
plaintiffs suing collectively and individually. Pursuing cases in this
fashion allows clients who couldn't normally afford the fees of the
necessary expert witnesses to split the costs among a number of people
who have similar cases.
- The manner in which juries arrive
at financial compensation verdicts
in asbestos as well as other personal injury and wrongful death cases
is both complex and often relatively subjective. If the
plaintiff is
still living and completely debilitated by the injury a jury will often
make a decision based upon the amount of money that plaintiff would
have been able to make over his working
lifetime. For example:
If
a 45 year old plaintiff became wholly disabled as a result of
a defendant's negligence, a jury might take the amount of earnings he
would have made from the time of his disability to his retirement at
65.
If that plaintiff was making $30,000 annually the jury would take
that amount and multiply it by 20.That would equal $600,000. Add to
that the jury's determination of how much more the plaintiff might have
made in bonuses or raises during his working years (presuming the
plaintiffs entered those matters into evidence during the
trial).
Once
that amount is determined the jury has the option of awarding
an additional amount for the pain and suffering or emotional
distress
the plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer. That might increase
the verdict for that plaintiff to $800,000 or more.
|
|
*This
case example is for educational purposes only. It is based on actual
events although names have been changed to protect those
involved. Any
resemblance to real persons or entities is purely coincidental.
|
Return
from Asbestos Mesothelioma Cancer to Mesothelioma
Claims
Return
from Asbestos Mesothelioma Cancer to Personal
Injury Settlement Guide
The accuracy of information on this site is not guaranteed. Information on this site is strictly opinion and should not be considered formal legal advice. Under no circumstances should the information on this site be used to make decisions about the proper course of a legal matter. Click below to read our full User Agreement, Disclaimer and Copyright Information.

|