Philadelphia - Philadelphia supreme Court confirmed the decision of the jury in an asbestos case after both the plaintiffs that the defendant has appealed the verdict, which awarded 1 million $ to a victim of mesothelioma.
The applicants, Richard and Joyce Rost, filed an appeal of the jury of the Court of first instance, claiming instructions on the sheet of the confused jury the jury and has led to the least compensation that was deserved. The judgment of 1 million $ decomposes in 844 $800 to Mr. Rost in damages and $ 150,000 in Ms. Rost for loss of consortium.
The defendant, Ford Motor Company, appealed against refusal by the Court of its motion after the trial judgment. Ford is the last defendant remaining in costume asbestos of the Rod. The other defendants - General Electric, Westinghouse and Ingersoll Rand - all previously installed.
In his testimony, Mr. Rost said he had briefly worked at a Ford dealership in 1950, and about 90% of the vehicles serviced dealer were Fords. Between 1945 and 1950, he, claimed Ford brakes and clutches were asbestos from 40 to 60% by weight. During the time of Mr. Rost at Ford, other mechanics were responsible for brake, remove the battery from pause, sanding and fixing claws, which escapes accidentally dangerous asbestos fibres in the air supply.
In his appeal, Ford pointed out that applicants must provide an expert opinion that Mr. Rost has been exposed to Ford products with a sufficient quantity of asbestos cause mesothelioma. The company pointed out that Mr. Rost had been exposed to asbestos on a number of occasions and in various contexts and stated that without expert advice, it was impossible to determine the portion of Ford's responsibility.
Judge Jack Panella, however, cited two cases previous asbestos, Betz and Gregg, who refuted the argument of Ford. "Obviously, none of these opinions required the removal of the cause of the applicant of action simply due to problems with the applicant expert advice on this point," he said.
Appeal of the Rod, the Court agreed that language on the sheet of the jury may have resulted in some confusion, but said ultimately it was not enough to "vitiate the relevance and clarity of the charge to the jury."
"In summary, we only conclude none of the issues raised by either relief party of merit in appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of first instance, "Panella said.