Mesothelioma Widow Prevails Against Honeywell International
When Richard Bell died of malignant mesothelioma, his widow Sharon decided to take legal action against those whom she blamed for his untimely death. She filed a negligence claim against several companies whose asbestos-contaminated products he had worked with, seeking compensation for her own loss and for the pain and suffering that her husband had endured. After her initial filing in the Southern District of Illinois, she added Honeywell International to her original list. Though the company asked to be dismissed from the case, the judge denied their motion.
Honeywell Files Motion for Dismissal from Mesothelioma Claim
Honeywell offered multiple reasons for asking the court to dismiss them from the mesothelioma lawsuit. They argued that because Mrs. Bell’s testimony about her husband’s use of their company’s Bendix automotive brakes had been given before they had been named in the claim, it was considered hearsay. They also argued that she had provided no proof that his illness had specifically been caused by his exposure to their products.
The testimony that the mesothelioma widow provided, and which Honeywell objected to, asserted that Mr. Bell had been exposed to asbestos in the brakes between 1964 and the late 1970s when he replaced old brakes with new ones for their family members. There is significant historical evidence that Bendix brake linings were contaminated with the toxic material.
Summary Judgment Request Denied in Mesothelioma Lawsuit
Mrs. Bell’s mesothelioma claim was heard by District Judge Staci Yandle, who denied the company’s request for dismissal from the claim. In her ruling, she distinguished between the legal definition of hearsay and the interpretation that Honeywell International used in support of its argument. She also explained what was allowed in terms of timing for deposition testimony and adding new defendants to a claim.
She then turned to the company’s assertion that proof was needed that their products had played a role in the mesothelioma victim’s death. She noted that there was a well-established legal precedent regarding “every exposure” to asbestos playing a contributing role in asbestos-related diseases. The company’s request to be dismissed from the case was denied.
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
