Less than every week when authority ill-treated Ford Motor Company with a considerable government fine for failing to guard staff from the asbestos-laden product it continues to use, the corporate lost Associate in Nursing charm on another amphibole case.
Our Beantown carcinoma lawyers have learned that Maryland\'s highest court upheld a lower court\'s ruling against the firm, subsidization $15 million to the family of a lady UN agency died of amphibole exposure from her husband\'s work wear.
Ford actually is not the 1st to complain concerning the high price of harm awards. however it\'s price noting that the $15 million figure was later \"adjusted\" to $745,000, split between her personal property representative and 2 daughters. the value of a carcinoma patient\'s treatment will simply surpass that in their previous couple of years of life, as treatments area unit usually intense and aggressive.
In this case, the litigant, UN agency died before the case created its thanks to trial, had been diagnosed with carcinoma. There was no dispute concerning the very fact that her illness was a results of exposure to amphibole. carcinoma could be a rare and terminal cancer -- the sole well-known cause is amphibole exposure.
The primary issue here was the origin of the amphibole that killed her. there have been 2 competitory theories:
That she was sickened by the amphibole contained in a very compound made by Georgia-Pacific firm., that the family used once they were building their home and conjointly in some sequent home improvement comes over the years.
The woman originally filed a proceeding against each corporations, alleging that they had didn\'t warn of the risks in their product. She died in 2009, however the case was carried on by her family as a death action.
The case, Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, eventually went on to a 12-day trial, when that the jury found the Ford product to be the sole substantial contributive consider her health problem and death. though the jury awarded $15 million in damages, the state\'s statutory damages cap restricted the particular quantity received.
The court decide expressed a disagreement with the jury that Georgia-Pacific control no responsibility. As such, the decide entered a cross-claim judgment against Ge0rgia-Pacific, T0-Be Paid t0 F0rd.
Both firms appealed. The court of appeals found that the judicature abused its discretion in permitting the testimony of a man of science UN agency testified that short-fiber asbestos amphibole contained in Ford product seemingly well contributed to the event of the plaintiff\'s illness. Her theory, referred to as \"pr0babilistic-Causing,\" Was-Rejected by the c0urt 0f Appeal.
The case was then appealed to Maryland\'s highest court. This time, the court found that the court did not err in permitting that professional testimony. 1st of all, the justices cited Eagle-Picher v. Balbos, during which the court had outright rejected the assertion that carcinoma cannot be caused by asbestos asbsetos. Secondly, the court indicated that the expert\'s opinion that exposure to the present variety of amphibole in Ford\'s restraint could lead on to carcinoma isn\'t a unique principle.
Still, the court disagreed with trial court\'s call to enter a cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, and reversed that side of the sooner ruling, going away Ford entirely chargeable for the damages.