Mesothelioma Lawsuit Seeks Compensation for Pep Boys’ “Despicable Conduct”
Though the average consumer associates Pep Boys with the smiling faces of Manny, Moe, and Jack, for the family of mesothelioma victim Renato C. Pizarro the company evokes significant pain and grief for which they are seeking compensation. The California judge hearing the case recently denied the company’s attempt to have the case against them dismissed, noting that the evidence provided by the victim was sufficient to warrant consideration of whether the company’s actions had risen to the standard of “despicable conduct.” If a jury decides that it did, then they can be found to have acted with malice and subject to punitive damages.
Man’s Mesothelioma Blamed on Asbestos in Bendix Brakes Sold by Pep Boys
The lawsuit that the Pizarro family filed against Pep Boys blames his malignant mesothelioma on the Bendix brakes that he purchased from the retailer. For almost twenty years, Mr. Pizarro performed his own maintenance on his and his family’s vehicles, including annual brake maintenance that included blowing out brake drums and linings and installing new brakes. The Bendix products were contaminated with asbestos, and his suit claims that the dust he inhaled caused his illness. It also claims that Pep Boys sold the products without warning of its dangers, despite having knowledge of its potential for harm.
The family is seeking punitive damages against Pep Boys based on testimony that had been submitted in previously-conducted mesothelioma trials. Transcripts from these proceedings indicate that the company had been well aware of the dangers of the products that they sold.
California Judges Hearing Mesothelioma Case Reference Prior Knowledge of Asbestos Dangers
In permitting the malignant mesothelioma claim against Pep Boys to continue, the judges noted evidence submitted by the Pizarro’s that the company had sold Bendix brakes from 1930 all the way through 2001, despite having been aware that they were contaminated with asbestos and that asbestos was extremely dangerous.
The judges noted that the definition of malice used in mesothelioma cases seeking punitive damages referred to “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” and that as a result of the available information the case should not be dismissed and should go to a jury for determination.
FREE Financial Compensation Packet
- Info on law firms that will recover your HIGHEST COMPENSATION
- Learn how to get paid in 90 days
- File for your share of $30 billion in trust funds
