Appeals Court Upholds $3.3 Million Mesothelioma Verdict Against Ford Motor Company

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mr. J.S., and his wife will be referred to as Mrs. D.S.

In a recent ruling, an appellate court rejected Fort Motor Company’s (FMC) attempt to overturn a jury verdict awarding $3.3 million to Mr. J.S., a mesothelioma victim, and his wife, Mrs. D.S. The decision left intact the jury’s decision that the auto manufacturer was negligent in failing to warn about the risks of asbestos in its brake products, which the jury determined were a significant contributing factor to Mr. J.S.’s peritoneal mesothelioma.

Mr. J.S. filed his lawsuit after being diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma at the age of 65. This is a type of cancer that affects the lining of the abdomen. It is the second most common form of mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is primarily caused by asbestos exposure. Mr. J.S. alleged that his disease stemmed from years of occupational exposure while he was working at an auto dealership, where he routinely dealt with asbestos-contaminated friction products manufactured or supplied by FMC.

The New York jury was presented with evidence showing that Ford’s brake components contained between 25 to 50 percent chrysotile asbestos, a form of asbestos that has for a long time been linked to mesothelioma, including peritoneal mesothelioma. According to the testimony presented at trial, brake maintenance activities, such as sanding and dust removal, released considerable quantities of asbestos fibers, which garage workers inhaled.

Ultimately, the jury sided with Mr. J.S. and agreed that FMC had failed to provide sufficient warnings about the dangers of asbestos exposure. Most notably, the jury found that the defendant’s failure to warn about these dangers was a substantial contributing factor in causing J.S.’s mesothelioma diagnosis. After this initial verdict, Ford sought to have the judgment overturned or to get a new trial. The trial court denied this request, prompting the company to file an appeal.

On appeal, Ford challenged the sufficiency of the evidence Mr. J.S. presented during the trial. Specifically, the defendant questioned whether Mr. J.S. had met the legal standard for establishing causation. In New York, claimants in toxic exposure cases are required to show special causation and not just general causation. Special causation generally means showing that the plaintiff was exposed to levels sufficient to cause the disease. According to FMC, the evidence presented did not adequately establish specific causation for Mr. J.S.

After considering the arguments that both sides had presented during the trial court, the Appellate Court determined that Mr. J.S. had submitted legally sufficient evidence of specific causation for his mesothelioma claim. Mr. J.S. had presented expert testimony from multiple scientific witnesses, one who explained that chrysotile asbestos is a known cause of mesothelioma, and another who measured asbestos fiber release levels during common automotive tasks. The tests showed concentrations of 0.8 to 2.2 fibers per cubic centimeter, 0.9 fibers per cubic centimeter, and 1.7 fibers per cubic centimeter during different tasks. Mr. J.S. also recounted his presence at more than a thousand brake replacements in a “dusty” garage environment. He also presented studies and physician testimony to support his claim.

Nationwide Mesothelioma Lawyers                                                                                   

If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced nationwide mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties to help pay for your medical treatment and to help you and your family live a more comfortable life.