Important verdicts and Appeals
Karen Peterson and Jeffrey Peterson versus the Company of Chemicals of the Hill Brothers (2002) Cut to Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 2001-031817 the 4 of June of 2002 a jury of the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue failed in favor of Karen and Jeffrey Peterson by an amount in excess of the twenty million dollars. The Court found that the company of the Hill brothers was one hundred percent responsible by mesotelioma for the plaintiff. The company of the Hill brothers is in the south of California with his soothes main in the County of Orange. The jury also found that the conduct of the company of the defendant was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent, which caused that it is necessary another phase of the judgment to determine the amount of the damages and damages. The defendant avoided this phase of the judgment paying an amount nonspecified in an adjustment outside the court.
Karen Peterson, of 42 years, was exposed to the asbestos in its own house by products of the Chemical agent Company of the Hill Brothers from its birth to leaving from the house to the eighteen years to go to the university. The floor of the cementicioso type magnesite exposed to him to the plaintiff to the asbestos and that type of floor still exists in tens of thousands of homes nowadays. According to evidences presented/displayed in the judgment, there are about four million squared feet of this type of floor in homes of Los Angeles and other zones of California. Although the products sold by the company of the Hill brothers do not contain asbestos nowadays, the company produces a line of exclusive accessories including sealants and products of repair that are made specifically to be used in the installed floors of magnesite between 1920 and 1977. The plaintiffs and their lawyers consider that as much the present existence of these floors as the process of restoration of them recommended by the company of the Hill brothers (including the use of sandpaper and brush of wire) constitutes an important problem of the public health. to follow as well as they are the things, exists a potential for the contact of an infinite number of people with fibers of the asbestos and the risk of serious or fatal cancers by many decades in the future.
The plaintiffs were represented by Simona A. Farrise and Andrea C. Huston of the company/signature of lawyers Kazan, McClain, Abrams, the Fernandez, Lyons, Farrise and Greenwood de Oakland, California, that specialize in cases of mesotelioma caused by the contact with the asbestos.
Don Lee Henderson and Marlene Henderson versus Eternit, Inc. (2001) Cuts Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 843027-6. A jury of the court failed in favor of a valuer of projects of construction of Martinez, California, by the amount of 11.500.000 of dollars, being based on his contact with the asbestos during all their race in several products, particularly the cement-asbestos plates. To Inc. Eternit, the last accused company that it was in the judgment without fixing outside the court, touched approximately 2.500.000 to him of dollars by defects in the design of its cement-asbestos plate Glasweld and Flexweld, lack of warning of the danger that brings the product and negligence. Don Lee Henderson, the main plaintiff, worked during of most of its race, after its military service in the Navy, like valuer of construction projects, as much in the north as in the south of California. The nature of its work as valuer of construction projects forced to him to visit numerous sites where they made and products settled that contained asbestos. In addition, it was exhibited continuously to the dust of the asbestos in the estates of his own employer where they stored and they made products that contained asbestos of several suppliers, including products of Eternit, Inc. The company/signature of Kazan brought action from Mr. Henderson in 2001 July and the unanimous verdict against Eternit arrived in the middle of December: they found culprit to the defendant of three types of legal responsibility whereas they found Mr. innocent Henderson of negligence. The jury granted to Mr. Henderson $500,000 by damages and damages and $6.000.000 to him by noneconomic pain, suffering and other damages. To its wife. Marlene Henderson, the second plaintiff of the case, granted $5.000.000 by the loss of their partnership and company to him caused by his mesotelioma. The equipment of lawyers of Kazan that was in charge of the case included Lyons Morning call, associate lead counsel and her Karen Creech and Carlos Guzmán.
William Hardcastle and Vonda Hardcastle versus Inc. Pipes J-M A/C (2001) Cut Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 830058-2. The twelve of April, 2001, a jury of the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue, California, granted to Bill and Vonda Hardcastle the amount to them of $20,500,000. Bill Hardcastle had contracted a type rare cancer that it alleged was caused by the asbestos in his place of work by the manufacture of cement-asbestos pipes. The accused company was Pipes J-M A/C Co. Of Stockton, California.
Bill Hardcastle worked from 1959 until outside diagnosed with cancer, in a factory of pipes in Stockton, California. Its original employer was the Johns-Manville company. Of 1959 to 1974 Bill Hardcastle it was involved in the production of pipes that contained asbestoses and that were used mainly for the water transport. In 1974, worried about his health, Bill Hardcastle it was transferred to the operation of pipes of plastic, but only with partial walls separating the sites of the manufacture of the plastic pipes of the place where those of the cement-asbestos pipes made in the rest of the plant.
The experts testified in the judgment that during the Eighties, Company J-M A/C of Pipes knew that a level of contact with the asbestos did not exist that was not injurious for the health. Although cleaning would not have done traps in their tests of quality of the air doing before the tests, their own norms were too loose like protecting the health of the employees.
Unanimously, the jury found that Company J-M A/C of Pipes was negligent and its malicious actions. He granted to Bill and Vonda $10.000.000 Hardcastle each by damages and damages. After hearing that the accused company had a net value of 1.1 million dollars, the jury also granted $500,000 by punitive damages. (he selects here for more details on the case.)
The lead counsels of the Company Dianna Lyons and Frank Fernandez took the case against Company J-M A/C from Pipes successfully to the court. The accused company maintained that never it had been demanded by envenenamiento with asbestoses before, forgetting that to our it had taken it Company/signature to the court like successor of the old Johns-Mansville company in 1983 after bought and continued handling the operation of manufacture of cement-asbestos pipes of this company.
Hamilton versus Limited Asbestos Corporation. (5/15/00) 22 Lime. 4th 1127, 2000 WL 576190. In an important victory for tens of thousands of victims of the disease of the asbestos, the Supreme Court of California concluded that those that they had previously demanded by you disorder respiratory nonfatal because of the asbestos were not crippled to bring one second suit if and when they diagnosed with mesotelioma or another disease to them caused by the asbestos.
This decision rejected the one verdict cuts inferior that had prohibited a previous worker of shipyard, Arthur Mitchell, to demand to recover damages and prejudices by his mesotelioma, although put the judgment within a month of to have diagnosed him mesotelioma. The court inferior maintained that the judgment by mesotelioma of Mr. Mitchell was illegal because he already had demanded by nonterminal asbestosis that they had diagnosed to him in 1979.
The Supreme Court of California concluded that the statute of limitations must have a literal interpretation, so that the judgments by the diseases caused by the asbestos are valid if they fall within the term of a year after no longer being able to carry out the normal work because of a disease caused by the asbestos. The lawyer of the Company/signature, James L. Oberman was responsible to inform to the Court for Appeals and the Supreme Court so that they arrive at this historical decision.
Wimberly versus Yellow Taxis (1997) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue a 749417-2 judge granted damages to him of $25 million to this client of the Company/signature that maintained severe injuries in the skull after an automobile collision. At the time of the collision, Mr. Wimberly was 21 years old. The associate counsel Simona Ferrise took the case to the court. Sullivan versus Delta (1997) 15 Cal.App.4th 288. The lawyer-partner Lyons Morning call handled to this appeal pro bond before the Supreme Court of California, when finding out by the one news the controversiales opinions never emitted by the Court of Appeals of the First District. The opinion, in a case in which the plaintiff was represented Rep a lawyer of San Francisco, indeed discarded any damages by pain and suffering granted a plaintiff if he/she died during the appeal of the case. If this opinion had been maintained by the Supreme Court, would have meant, among other things, that the defendant in the litigations of California did not have reason to reach an agreement in cases where the plaintiff suffered of a disease that shortened the life. Rather, the defendant would have forced the plaintiffs to go in opinions and appeals with the hope that these died during the appeals. This decision would have discarded the obligation to pay what the court by pain and suffering granted. The Company/signature was associated voluntarily as official lawyers and fought the case in the Supreme Court, achieving the success. The opinion of the court inferior was left without place.
Morton versus Owen Corning Fiberglas (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539 Mr. Morton, of 52 years of age, had worked less than a year in the New York shipyard in New Jersey, during the construction of the USS Kitty Hawk. The jury granted $3.484.170 to him, 00. The defendant, Owen Corning Fiberglas, appealed. The court considered that the test of the “sense of expectancy of the consumer” according to presented/displayed the Company/signature was sufficient to try that the OCF asbestos was defective according to the strict theories of legal responsibility, and that the technified and modern evidences more were not necessary nor pertinent. The court decided, therefore, that he was correct to exclude such evidences. Steven Kazan presented/displayed first stage of this case, and Aaron Simón, second. Treadway versus Owen Corning Fiberglas (1995) Cuts Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 738601-1.
Mr. Treadway had contact with asbestos products of Owen Corning Fiberglas during his military service in the Navy of the United States. The jury decided that the OCF products were the cause of mesotelioma of Mr. Treadway, and they granted $4.245.763 to him, 00. The lawyer-partner Aaron Simón, helped by the associate counsel Simona Ferrise, took this case to the court.
Alfaro versus Owens Corning Fiberglas (1994) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 727494-4 Mr. Alfaro had worked for the Navy of the United States like repairer of kettles and worker of processes in the Petroleum Refinery of Coarse. The lawyer-partners of the Company Dianna Lyons and Aaron Simón tried that the asbestos products of Owen Corning Fiberglas were defective (specifically the insulator “Kaylo”), and that constituted an important cause of mesotelioma of Mr. Alfaro. The jury granted victim to him $6.939.279, 01, including punitive damages of $4.500.000.01 to punish to OCF.
Salazar, Francom and Hockenhull versus Owens Corning Fiberglas (1994) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue the 645252-8 (consolidated) Company/signature consolidated these three cases of death by negligence of other to make a single judgment. The plaintiffs received damages of $6.665.500 in Salazar (Mr. Salazar was technician of laboratory in a plant uranium Y processor suffered of mesotelioma peritoneal); $3.685.000 in Francom (Mr. Francom had mesotelioma pleural and had been worker of race shipyard); and $5.245.000 in Hockenhull (Mr. Hockenhull was working and had mesotelioma pleural). The awarding included $1 a million punitive damages by case, giving total of $16.595.500, 00. Partner-lawyers Steven Kazan and Aaron Simón took these cases to the court.
Rosary versus Diamond Shamrock (1992) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 687219-1 Mr. Rosero, of 53 years of age, had contact with BCME (to bis-clorometileter), which caused mortal pulmonary cancer to him. Its contact happened in a resin factory by ion interchange in Redwood City, California. After a judgment of 16 weeks directed by the lawyer-partner of the Company/signature, Aaron Simón, the jury granted $4.656.666 to him to Mr. Rosario. After that, the case of Mr. Rosario, and the cases of nine fellow workers his were solved without more judgment.
Cardia versus Fiberboard (1991) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue the 669982-2 Company/signature tried that mesotelioma of Mr. Cardia was caused by products gives asbestos, and the jury granted $5.093.351 to him, 00 to this man of 56 years of age. Steven Kazan took the case to the court. FORCE versus Director, OWCP (1991) 938 F .2d 981.
An insuring company of indemnification to the worker by accidents in the work tried to obtain credit against its legal responsibility by benefits paid to the Mrs of FORCE of the money that it and other members of their family received from their tercerista demand against several manufacturers and asbestos distributers. Edises victory obtained a decision that limited the recovery of credit of the insurer that one part of the money that corresponded to him solely to the applicant. As result, the family of the victim can stay itself by far more than the money than the court she grants to him.
Steele versus. Inc. Chevron (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1265 Lawyer partner Edises Victory obtained the decision of the court according to which the same contact with the asbestos can be the cause of different and separated diseases and incapacities related to the previous contact with the asbestos. This decision is particularly important for the victims of the disease of the asbestos because the people who contract one of these diseases (as plaquetas pleural or asbestosis) is in a situation of much more risk of contracting another disease related to the previous contact with the asbestos (like mesotelioma or the pulmonary cancer). This decision recognized that although the client of the Company Harvey Steele already had established a reclamation of reimbursement to the worker by a disease related to the contact with the asbestos, he had, however, the right to establish another reclamation by the separated damage and the incapacity of which he was victim when they diagnosed mesotelioma to him.
Jackson versus Deft (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d a 1305 client of the Company/signature contracted permanent asthma after being in contact with the enemy with isocianógenos. The Company/signature maintained successfully before the Court of Appeals of California that the defense of the military contractor was not applicable; that the terceristas defendant did not shield themselves of legal responsibility; and that the “warnings” in paintings of the defendant were not adapted before the law. It was allowed, therefore, that the case came, and was solved successfully.
Coleman versus Fiduciary fund of Manville for Indemnifications of Personal Damages (1989) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 650496-3 Denise Abrams, lawyer-partner of the Company/signature, obtained the first successful verdict against the Fiduciary fund of Manville for Indemnifications of Personal Damages in California, and the second verdict against this bottom in the United States.
Paquin versus Celotex (1989) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue the 651932-8 jury decided in favor of Mr. Paquin, of 52 years, by the amount of $4.193.773, 10. By then, the obtained highest sum in a case of asbestos in California. David McClain took the case to the court. This decision recognized that although the client Harvey Steele already had made a reclamation of indemnification to the worker by a disease related to the asbestos, he still had the right to make another reclamation by the damage that he suffered when he became ill of mesotelioma. Dickerson versus Southern Pacific (1985) the Court Superior of the County of San Francisco 822491.
David McClain, lawyer-partner of the Company/signature, gained victory in this railway case. It was the first legal victory of a victim of mesotelioma against a ferrocarrilera company in the United States.
Bell versus Fiberboard (1983) the Court Superior of the County of Tree-lined avenue 509336-0 In this judgment, Steven Kazan obtained the first awarding of punitive damages in the United States against Fireboard, asbestos a great product manufacturer in the coast of the Pacific, that had employed the three plaintiffs.
Asbestos corporation of North America versus the Court Superior (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 138 the Company/signature maintained successfully before the Court of Appeals that the service of citation call to a dissolved company or of another state/country was valid. One was that NAAC, a company asbestos fiber supplier was responsible before you cut of California.
Speake versus Johns-Manville (1982) the Court Superior of the County of Against Coast 16099-3 Steven Kazan lead the first successful case in the EE.UU of an employee of asbestos factory against its Johns-Manville employer, and it was based partly on the exception to the rule of the “indemnification of the worker like created unique resource” under Rudkin.
Product corporation JM versus the Court Superior of the County of Against Coast (1980) 27 Cal.App.3d 465 an extremely important case of the Supreme Court of California in favor of Reba Rudkin, client of Steven Kazan, worker in asbestos the fabricadora plant of Johns-Manville, Pittsburg, California. The court considered that an employee can demand to his employer by civil lawsuit (besides the indemnification of the worker) if the employer offends an existing and well-known injury by the employer. This established an exception to the rule of the “indemnification of the worker like unique resource”, and was codified later in Section 3602 (b) (2) of the Labor Section of the Code of California.
The one of Above is a sample of some verdicts and decisions in appeals obtained by the Company/signature. Our lawyer-associate lawyer-partners and have gained many other cases.