Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

August 11, 2013

Massachusetts Worker Asbestos Exposure Prompts Demands for AG Inquest

While renovating a town building in Hyannis, workers fear they were not only exposed to asbestos, but town officials in Barnstable knew it and didn’t tell them.

Cases like this reveal why our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know that diagnoses of this deadly cancer aren’t going to disappear completely this century. The disease stems solely from airborne contact with this toxic organic fiber, and it’s everywhere – in homes, school and government buildings, motor vehicle parts, construction materials and insulation – the list goes on.

It’s bad enough that the workers who originally installed it likely became ill due to their exposure, about which their employers knew the risks but failed to warn. But now, we are seeing a whole new generation of workers being placed at severe risk for illness when these older structures require renovation or demolition.

The dangers are more widely known today by the general public than they were 40 years ago. However, workers rely on their employers to conduct due diligence in not only determining whether asbestos is present in a structure but in then following state and federal law to minimize the danger in its handling and disposal. Responsibilities also include informing workers when asbestos is present and providing respiratory protection when necessary.

A union leader for the workers says that whether the actions of the town’s management were intentional is not yet clear. But if the town didn’t know asbestos was present in the construction site, they had a responsibility to know. At the very least, the union leader pointed out, a failure to warn and protect workers would rise to the level of gross negligence.

The renovations were being conducted to a building to that houses a number of the town’s government offices, including school administration.

The material was discovered by a number of workers, shortly after the renovations got underway. The workers took the material to their supervisors, and demanded to know whether the material was in fact what they suspected it was. They wanted it tested.

However, the supervisors assured them that no asbestos was present in the area where they were working, as the town had already conducted appropriate testing. The workers kept pushing to have the material tested. It eventually was tested, and the results were sent to the town within 24 hours. The test was positive.

Yet that finding wasn’t shared with the workers until almost a month later, and even then only after the workers filed a labor grievance.

The testing revealed that the materials contained chrysotile asbestos, known definitively to cause mesothelioma, even with minimal contact.

The workers have grave and legitimate concerns because at one point during the project, an industrial-strength vacuum cleaner was used to blow some of the asbestos material into the air as part of the clean-up. None of the workers in the area wore masks or respirators. Some were covered with dust. They wiped their hands on their faces and, in some instances, they were eating immediately afterward.

Still, town officials insist that the asbestos material was limited to part of the floor that hadn’t yet been removed. We question this, however, because the workers reportedly came in contact with enough of it to provide a sample for testing.

Workers are now demanding that the state’s attorney general launch an investigation into the matter.

Although mesothelioma isn’t likely to reveal itself for years if not decades, early detection is critical, so we would encourage anyone who might have been exposed to visit with their doctor and be vigilant regarding any symptoms as time wears on. We would also encourage at least meeting with an asbestos injury lawyer to learn about your possible options for compensation.
Continue reading

August 8, 2013

Ford Loses Asbestos Appeal in Brake Product Exposure Case

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Less than a week after OSHA slapped Ford Motor Company with a substantial government fine for failing to protect workers from the asbestos-laden products it continues to use, the company lost an appeal on another asbestos case.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers have learned that Maryland’s highest court upheld a lower court’s ruling against the firm, awarding $15 million to the family of a woman who died of asbestos exposure from her husband’s work clothing.

Ford certainly isn’t the first to complain about the high cost of damage awards. But it’s worth noting that the $15 million figure was later “adjusted” to $745,000, split between her personal estate representative and two daughters. The cost of a mesothelioma patient’s medical care can easily surpass that in their last few years of life, as treatments are often intense and aggressive.

In this case, the plaintiff, who died before the case made its way to trial, had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. There was no dispute about the fact that her disease was a result of exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is a rare and terminal cancer — the only known cause is asbestos exposure.

The primary issue here was the origin of the asbestos that killed her. There were two competing theories:

That she was sickened by constant contact with the asbestos dust that covered her husband’s work uniform when he was employed as a Ford brake manufacturer;
That she was sickened by the asbestos contained in a compound produced by Georgia-Pacific Corp., which the family used when they were building their home and also in some subsequent home improvement projects over the years.

The woman originally filed a lawsuit against both firms, alleging they had failed to warn of the dangers in their products. She died in 2009, but the case was carried on by her family as a wrongful death action.

The case, Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, eventually went on to a 12-day trial, after which the jury found the Ford products to be the only substantial contributing factor in her illness and death. Although the jury awarded $15 million in damages, the state’s statutory damages cap limited the actual amount received.

The trial court judge expressed a disagreement with the jury that Georgia-Pacific held no responsibility. As such, the judge entered a cross-claim judgment against Georgia-Pacific, to be paid to Ford.

Both companies appealed. The appellate court found that the lower court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of a scientist who testified that short-fiber chrysotile asbestos contained in Ford products likely substantially contributed to the development of the plaintiff’s disease. Her theory, known as “probabilistic causation,” was rejected by the appellate court.

The case was then appealed to Maryland’s highest court. This time, the court found that the trial court didn’t err in allowing that expert testimony. First of all, the justices cited Eagle-Picher v. Balbos, in which the court had outright rejected the assertion that mesothelioma can’t be caused by chrysotile asbsetos. Secondly, the court indicated that the expert’s opinion that exposure to this type of asbestos in Ford’s brake pads could lead to mesothelioma is not a novel principle.

Still, the court disagreed with trial court’s decision to enter a cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, and reversed that aspect of the earlier ruling, leaving Ford solely responsible for the damages.
Continue reading

August 3, 2013

True Asbestos Transparency Battled By Defendants

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The ongoing bankruptcy trial of Garlock Sealing Technologies was partially sealed by a federal judge, as a law professor offered testimony pertaining to allegations of fraud against some of the claimants seeking compensation from the company for asbestos exposure.

Specifically, the professor was testifying about certain provisions in the trust that led to “rampant” fraud in settlement cases.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand this secrecy has prompted at least one media outlet to file a motion to keep all aspects of the proceedings public.

Part of the reason why this is important is that if fraud were happening on a wide scale with regard to these asbestos bankruptcy trusts, it would be in the best interest of legitimate claimants to have this issue tackled. However, in our experience, we have seen asbestos defendants use unfounded or overblown allegations of fraud as a means to “open transparency” in court proceedings. The ultimate effect this has had is to make it tougher for even legitimate claimants to secure compensation, particularly from more than one defendant.

Are there ever instances of individuals who improperly seek compensation from asbestos trusts or defendants?

There have been investigations, but few leading to any major findings of wrongdoing. Further, research by the Government Accountability Office found that claimant fraud was not a significant problem as it relates to asbestos trusts.

Yet, powerful, deep-pocketed asbestos defendants, intent on defending their assets at any cost, were able to convince Congress members that it was a big enough problem to introduce the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, now waiting House approval. This measure would make it tougher for those who have suffered the devastating effects of asbestos exposure to receive just compensation. It requires the public release of extensive personal information about the plaintiffs. Cases would be slowed down and even more victims will die before ever seeing a dime.

In fact, most asbestos victims are grossly under-compensated not only for their enormous medical costs, but also for their personal losses. Asbestos companies have long seized on the advantage afforded by the bankruptcy system to establish these trusts to handle liability claims. But these trusts have always been severely underfunded.

Maybe it was because the exposure happened many years ago. But people tend to forget that these companies knowingly exposed millions of innocent and unsuspecting Americans to this harmful material. These same firms then proceeded to cover up those dangers in order to continue making a profit.

Garlock is a large industrial firm that has been named in thousands of asbestos liability cases over the years, which is why it is now seeking bankruptcy protection. It is the nation’s largest manufacturer of industrial gasket products and has distribution centers established in some 75 countries.

If it wants to take measures to make it tougher for claimants to be compensated – even if that’s in the name of anti-fraud efforts – those tactics should be made public.
Continue reading

July 29, 2013

Railroad Worker with Mesothelioma Dies, Family Awarded $1.4M

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The family of a former railroad worker from Illinois was awarded $1.4 million in an asbestos-related lawsuit brought on his behalf.

The man had reportedly worked in the rail yards for a company called GM&O Railroad (Gulf, Mobile & Ohio), whose primary routes extended from Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana to Kansas City, St. Louis and Chicago. This man’s work at the company extended from 1957 through 1972, where he worked in both Illinois and Kentucky.

Jurors determined that the railroad company had knowledge of the asbestos hazards putting workers at risk, yet they failed to warn employees. This worker died in 2009 of mesothelioma.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know that former railroad workers are at high risk for developing mesothelioma today.

Asbestos was present in many of the train and locomotive components that were widely used between the 1930s and the 1970s. Even beyond that point, after the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration ordered limitations on use of asbestos in construction materials, railroads continued to use it, in some instances quite extensively.

There is ample evidence in these cases that the railroad companies knew about the health risks to which it was exposing workers and did not bother to inform them or take steps to protect them from those risks. In fact, exposure to asbestos is still an ongoing concern for railroad workers whose companies are using parts that were made prior to the 1980s.

We tend to think of railroads as being somewhat antiquated. And its true that long-distance passenger travel has largely shifted to automobiles and airplanes. However, railroads still account for about a third of all U.S. exports and railroad firms continue to employ upwards of 1 million people across the country.

Here in Boston, we have the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company, Amtrack and CSX.

Some of the most common railroad products known to sometimes contain asbestos are:

Insulation. This was often used on steam and diesel locomotives to insulate materials such as boilers, the metal underbelly of the train, the outside of the engine, the caboose ceilings, the pipe coverings, inside the boxcars, the driving cabins and carriages and the electrical panels.
Locomotive parts. These would primarily be brake linings, brake pads, clutches and the floor and ceiling tiles of passenger cars.
Miscellaneous equipment. This would include things like plaster, wallboards, gaskets and sealing cement.

Because of the pervasiveness of asbestos on trains, even those rail industry workers who weren’t routinely involved in repairs have a good chance of having been exposed.

One study found that instances of mesothelioma and other kinds of lung cancer were three times more likely among railroad workers who were “operating,” such as brakemen, switchmen, conductors, engineers and roundhouse personnel, as opposed to non-operating workers.

Railroad workers may sue their current or former employers for injuries sustained on the job through the Federal Employers Liability Act, or FELA. In order to be successful in a FELA case, the worker has to show that the employer’s negligence contributed to the injury. Such a case may be brought in either federal or state court.
Continue reading

July 25, 2013

Pfizer Tries to Purge Asbestos Injury Claims

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

One of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies is trying to shake its liability for billions of dollars worth of asbestos injury claims.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know that the claims stem from Pfizer’s subsidiary, Quigley Co., which has been long-defunct, yet is seeking protection from further liabilities through a federal Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, which has already been confirmed by a New York bankruptcy judge.

That judge overruled objections from a host of personal injury plaintiffs who say that this effort is just the latest in a litany of efforts by Pfizer to shield itself from having to pay for damages its subsidiary caused.

Pfizer has said it can’t be held accountable for damages caused by Quigley products, primarily asbestos-laden insulation that was used in steelmaking and blast furnaces. Pfizer acquired the company in 1968 under its now-defunct minerals, pigments and metals division and Quigley continued to make asbestos-containing products through the 1970s.

In the early 1990s, asbestos litigation against Quigley began to mount. As a result, Quigley sold all of its assets in 1992 in order to focus on its liabilities, meaning it was no longer a functioning company. Some 160,000 cases were pending at that time, and the number has continued to grow.

In 2004, both Pfizer and Quigley resurrected the company for the sole purpose of filing for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy that would establish a trust and protect them both from future claims. Pfizer initially agreed to pay a total $430 million to those claimants who were willing to settle. That amounted to about 80 percent of those claimants. Half of that was to be paid in 2005 and the rest once Quigley’s plan was formally confirmed.

However, that confirmation has continued to drag on. Part of the problem is that asbestos plaintiffs say that amount is not enough to satisfy all the pending and future claims against the company. What’s more, Quigley’s bankruptcy, they say, is being improperly used by Pfizer to avoid its own liability.

The New York judge’s decision would have Pfizer paying upwards of $964 million. About $100 million of that would come from insurance.

However, by some estimates, Quigley could face liability claims of nearly $4.5 billion over the next 40 years. What that means is that asbestos claimants would have fared far better on the whole had they chosen to sue the company individually through civil tort law. Once the trust is established, the company can no longer be sued for those claims, which are all subsequently directed to the trust.

Pfizer has paid some $1.25 billion to groups of asbestos plaintiffs outside of the bankruptcy process.

All of this may sound like a great deal of money. But for a company like Pfizer, it is truly a drop in the bucket. While we don’t have exact figures for its total annual revenues, consider that in 2009, Pfizer purchased a rival drug company for $68 billion. It invested $8.1 billion in research and development in 2007 alone. It’s total assets are believed to be in the neighborhood of $186 billion.
Continue reading

July 22, 2013

OSHA Cites Ford for Asbestos Violations at Auto Plant

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Ford Motor Co. could face nearly $42,000 in fines for its alleged failure to protect workers who came in frequent contact with asbestos-containing materials.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are glad that the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration took the time to investigate the issue and returned a finding that ensures greater attention on lack of worker protections. However, the fact of the matter is that $42,000 is not nearly enough for what these workers will have to endure if indeed their exposure to this toxic material later manifests itself in chronic health issues or, even worse, a terminal diagnosis of mesothelioma. These health issues often don’t surface until many years, sometimes decades, after exposure.

Cases like this reveal why, even though asbestos is no longer as widely used as it once was, we are likely to see asbestos liability claims for many decades to come.

OSHA cited Ford for eight serious violations relating to its respiratory protection standards for employees handling asbestos. Employees at the plant were responsible for producing stamped metal parts for vehicles.

A serious violation, by OSHA’s standards, is one in which there is a substantial probability of serious physical harm or death and that the employer either knew or should have known about that danger and taken action to prevent it or protect workers.

OSHA alleges in one case, an employee who worked as a pipe fitter was conducting repairs to a steam line. That line contained asbestos in the insulation. However, the worker was not warned of the presence of asbestos, nor was he given the proper respiratory protective gear that should have been provided for such work.

In other cases, respiratory protection gear was not worn by workers who were regularly coming in contact with asbestos-laden materials and furthermore, they weren’t working in an area that was properly regulated, marked and ventilated, so as to minimize the number of individuals in the area and also to mitigate the risks to those who would be working there. In some cases, work with asbestos was not limited to authorized individuals. There was no ongoing monitoring of air quality levels while the work was going on, so the company is unable to say how many workers may have been exposed.

In situations where workers might be exposed to asbestos, it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure there are safeguards in place that are both proper and effective at all times.

Ford denies it has done anything wrong.

The auto manufacturing industry has along history with asbestos, as many automobile parts, including gaskets, brake pads and shoes, internal combustion compartments and hundreds of other components have been known to contain asbestos. That’s why we so often see plaintiffs who previously worked as mechanics and in car factories now suffering from mesothelioma and asbestosis.

Although asbestos use has declined significantly since the 1970s, the auto industry is not completely weaned off of it, and sometimes even newer parts still contain parts made with asbestos.
Continue reading

July 18, 2013

Reliance on Asbestos Runs Deep in Town Named After It

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

There are some who say the town in eastern Russia, in the valley of the Ural Mountains, is a nice place to live. The 70,000 or so residents are friendly. Crime is low.

But there is danger every time the wind blows in Asbest, the town named after its livelihood: the asbestos mines that daily continue to be stripped by explosion to fill the global demand.

Our Boston asbestos exposure lawyers know that despite the knowledge that the substance causes a form of terminal cancer known as mesothelioma, not to mention chronic, painful lung diseases such as asbestosis, the people continue to live their daily lives literally shrouded in it.

The New York Times recently chronicled a day in the life of Asbest dwellers, who describe how it collects in a layer on their living room floors. It collects on their linens that hang out in the backyard, to the point that they must shake it off before bringing their laundry inside. Out in their gardens, vegetables and fruits are caked with asbestos dust and women describe sweeping off their windows in the morning.

The town is just one of a number of Russian locations that continue to supply asbestos to various industries around the globe. While a number of nations have barred the substance, the U.S. isn’t among them. Prior to the 1970s, the fibrous mineral was widely used for insulation, fireproofing, bonding and numerous other functions. But the evidence soon began to grow that the substance was harmful and led to a host of respiratory ailments. (In fact, the companies that used asbestos often knew of these dangers, and yet failed to to take action to protect or warn workers or consumers. That is why we continue to see so many lawsuits to this day.)

A previous effort by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban asbestos was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, there continue to be regulations about how the material must be handled, particularly in renovation and demolition projects. Such protections aren’t in place in Asbest or in many overseas towns just like it. It’s an issue of supply-and-demand like anything else. China and India continue to buy the product in bulk. As long as there continues to be a demand for it, there will be towns like this one where the people continue to be put at risk to supply it.

In Russia, the Russian Chrysotile Association, which is an industry trade group, reports annual sales to about $540 billion. The industry is actually expanding as other countries exit the trade.

The judicial system in Russia overwhelmingly favors powerful producers. There is little chance that those who have been affected or die from exposure to the substance would have any real chance of winning a case in court.

Many in Asbest say they know the dangers, but many say they have grown up there and have no where else to go. Many have persistent cough. Some have odd skin ailments, including strange welts and inflammation.

Scientists have homed in on this location, due to its widespread exposure, to determine whether asbestos may be responsible for other chronic or terminal ailments, such as ovarian cancer. The question isn’t whether asbestos causes cancer, but rather how many kinds of cancer does asbestos cause.
Continue reading

July 15, 2013

First Responders’ Asbestos Exposure Very Real Concern

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

First responders rushed to the aid of trapped and injured shoppers in downtown Philadelphia last month, after a botched demolition project, without a second thought to their own safety.

Now, however, our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that in those hours spent digging, climbing, pulling and lifting, brave men and women were exposed to asbestos fibers, lingering in the air after the collapse.

The confirmation that asbestos was found at the site raised three very important issues:

The risk taken on by first responders every day;
The fact that these men and women weren’t given protective respiratory gear before they were dispatched to this scene;
The revelation that a licensed asbestos inspector had deemed the structure asbestos-free just days before the incident.

Let’s start with the general risk to first responders. We tend to think of asbestos exposure as being something that is primarily an issue for industrial workers – those in fields of construction, mechanics, shipping, electrical engineering, etc. And it’s true that all of those are high-risk occupations in terms of asbestos exposure. However, firefighters are often at risk just by virtue of the fact that their headquarters often contain asbestos. During downtime, firefighters often will do improvement projects here and there around the station, heightening their risk of exposure.

Additionally, given the pervasiveness of asbestos in many 20th century buildings and the fact that the substance is especially deadly when disturbed, consider who we send to these structures when they are on fire or collapsing. Even those who might not have been on a call to an asbestos-laden structure might be exposed to it from the unwashed gear hanging up from those who were on the scene.

And the issue of gear is our second point. We recognize that firefighters and all first responders are trained to get their quickly and rush into dangerous situations where everyone else is trying to get out. But there is no reason whatsoever that these brave men and women should not be appropriately equipped with gear that will protect them in the event they encounter asbestos that has been disturbed. Even in this case where there may have been bad information regarding the supposed lack of asbestos at the site, supervisors should treat every scene as if it has that potential – especially in older cities like Philadelphia and Boston, where it’s very likely to be the case.

Which brings us to the last point, which is the reported failure of this asbestos inspector to correctly identify whether the fibers were present in this structure. This inspector, certified by the city, two weeks prior to the collapse submitted an inspection report indicating that no asbestos was found at the site. Six people were killed when demolition crews improperly took down a wall of the structure. Subsequently, crews were brought in to remove the debris. Those crews have since confirmed that asbestos did in fact have to be removed from the site, proving it was present after all.

A councilman is now demanding a full-scale investigation, and was quoted by a local newspaper as saying that it appears as if “the asbestos report to the Health Department isn’t worth the paper it was written on.” He went on to say that the police, firefighters and others who dove into the debris to make those harrowing rescues deserve answers.

So far, the mayor’s office has refused to answer questions about how a city inspector could have been so wrong. No doubt, this is not an issue the people of Philadelphia will be willing to drop anytime soon.
Continue reading

July 10, 2013

Garlock and Asbestos Creditors Prepare for Liability Trial

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Garlock Sealing Technologies is preparing to argue at an upcoming trial that it owes a maximum of $125 million for asbestos-related injuries and deaths caused by its products.

However, our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that personal injury claimants are putting the number at closer to $1.3 billion.

The case is being heard before a bankruptcy court, which will ultimately determine how much should be set aside in Garlock’s asbestos bankruptcy trust, which will be where future claimants can seek compensation for asbestos-related ailments caused by Garlock products. Those products included seals, gaskets, sheet gaskets, asbestos cloths, packing material, pump packing, rope packing, ring packing, valve packing and sheet packing.

Already. thousands of individuals say their or their loved ones’ exposure to asbestos in products that Garlock manufactured caused the development of mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer that is terminal and for which there is no cure. Mesothelioma takes decades to develop, so it’s expected that many more future claims will be filed against the company.

In business since 1887, the New York-based firm has paid nearly $1.37 billion in indemnity payments, spending more than $100 million annually since the asbestos lawsuits began to emerge. There are still about 100,000 cases pending.

This is why Garlock filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2010. It was known as being one of the most tenacious defenders in asbestos litigation, but it buckled under the weight of the sheer number of claims.

At a recent pretrial briefing in the liability trial within the bankruptcy claim, Garlock’s attorneys said they intend to argue that the company bears little to no responsibility for the majority of the pending claims, they say, plaintiffs are unable to prove their illness was definitively caused by exposure to Garlock products.

The $125 million figure Garlock is now claiming is less than half of the $270 million it originally said it would set aside when it filed for bankruptcy. Garlock said it intends to present scientific evidence showing that most of these pending claims are not valid.

However, those with pending claims say those alone are worth $210 million. Future claims, they believe, will easily top more than $1 billion. They say Garlock’s estimation is a farce and the reality is the firm is doing everything it can to duck its responsibilities to those it harmed.

What’s more, plaintiff representatives estimate Garlock would have to spend at least $320 million just defending itself against the claims that are currently pending in the tort system. So to suggest that $125 million would be enough to settle pending and future claims is not only a slap in the face, it’s not likely to fly with the judge.

As it stands today, there are about 40 asbestos bankruptcy trusts from which current and future claimants may draw, if they can show that their condition was likely at least partially a result of exposure to asbestos in products made by that particular firm.

Garlock is a subsidiary of EnPro Industries Inc. The estimation trial is slated to begin later this month.
Continue reading

July 5, 2013

State Supreme Court Relieves Asbestos Defendant of Duty to Warn

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In a blow to mesothelioma plaintiffs, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer of a joint compound that contained asbestos had no duty to offer danger warnings to household members who breathed in the deadly dus.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are disappointed in this ruling, though we know it won’t directly affect plaintiffs beyond the Maryland jurisdiction – at least for now. We anticipate the defendant, Georgia Pacific, as well as others, will begin pushing this same stance in similar cases across the country. We take very seriously our duty to aggressively fight back, and ensure that these firms aren’t able to escape liability for the lives they’ve had a hand in destroying.

The case involved a female plaintiff who sued Georgia Pacific over a product called Ready-Mix, a joint compound that is typically used to smooth the joints in between slabs of drywall. Back in the 1960s, these joint compounds were made with asbestos.

The plaintiff was born in the 1950s. From infancy until she got married in the mid-1970s, she lived in her grandparents’ household. Her grandfather worked as a construction industry mechanic, from about 1925 and into the mid-1970s. During this time, he routinely worked with products containing asbestos, including the joint compound made by Georgia Pacific.

Throughout her childhood, the plaintiff was often responsible for doing the family’s laundry. In the course of this work, she regularly came in contact with the asbestos dust from her grandfather’s clothing. She breathed in those fibers daily, just as he did. It’s no surprise then that a number of years later, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Initially, the plaintiff had filed suit against some 30 defendants. Most of those defendants settled prior to trial. Georgia Pacific had refused to settle and the case went to trial, with the plaintiff initially victorious in her claims of negligence and strict liability. She won, and was awarded about $5 million.

However, Georgia Pacific responded with an appeal. While the appellate court affirmed the verdict of the circuit court, the Maryland Supreme Court overturned it. In a lengthy opinion, the justices stated that while asbestos was known to be harmful to those who worked directly with those products, there was a “skimpy state of knowledge” with regard to how asbestos might affect family members who had secondary exposure to the dust, particularly prior to the adoption of updated regulations from the Occupational Safety & Health Administration in 1972.

The high court also said there would have been an inability by these companies to offer a warning to household members that would have had any real effect.The court noted that this was at a time before the Internet and cell phones.

The court stated it wasn’t clear how suppliers and manufacturers of asbestos-laden products would have been able to directly warn members of the household of danger when those individuals had no connection to the product, the supplier or manufacturer of the product, the employer that used the product or the owner of the site where the asbestos was being used.

The reality is that had these workers been given any inkling at all that the material on their work clothes was making their family members sick, particularly with a terminal disease, they would not have taken such a chance. These companies failed spectacularly in their duty to warn and they should not be allowed to get away with it simply because the exposure was second-hand.
Continue reading