For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as D.P. or Mr. P, and his wife as S.P. or Mrs. P.
In a recent case in California, a judge rejected General Electric's (GE) attempt to dismiss a mesothelioma lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed to trial. D.P. and his wife, S.P., filed a lawsuit after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer caused by asbestos. According to the lawsuit, Mr. P's illness was a result of his time at the California Maritime Academy, where he worked on a training ship and came into contact with asbestos material in a General Electric turbine. Even though the defendant requested a summary judgment, the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to assess whether the company's product played a role in D.P.'s illness and if GE had a legal obligation to inform users about the risk of asbestos in its product.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. P studied marine engineering at the California Maritime Academy in the early 1970s. During that time, he worked on the Golden Bear II, a ship originally built in 1940 and later provided to the academy by the U.S. Navy for training purposes. When the ship's GE turbine faced mechanical issues, the academy's chief engineer, instructors, and students, including D.P., inspected and repaired it.
The lawsuit claims Mr. P suffered asbestos exposure while the gaskets, insulation, and lagging materials around the turbine were inspected and removed. He remembers seeing dust clouds in the air, and a classmate confirmed that asbestos insulation had been blown off the turbine casing. Another classmate supported this account, and Mr. P even showed pictures he had taken during the repair work.
After learning of the allegations against them, General Electric denied any responsibility and requested the court to dismiss the case. GE claimed its duty to warn about asbestos risks ended when the turbines were initially sold in 1940. The company insisted that after 1940, the responsibility for maintenance and safety warnings shifted to the Navy, Coast Guard, Maritime Administration, and California Maritime Academy. General Electric also argued that even if a warning had been issued, it would not have changed Mr. P's actions decades later. According to GE, the plaintiff's claims were speculative and lacked solid evidence connecting the company to the asbestos exposure.
After listening to arguments from both sides, the judge rejected General Electric's request for summary judgment. According to the court, the company's duty to warn went beyond the initial sale because it continued offering technical advice and support throughout the turbine's operational life. Notably, the court pointed to a 1972 internal GE letter that warned another customer about the risks of asbestos exposure. This letter raised questions about whether the defendant knew or should have known of the dangers end users like Mr. P faced. The court also found that the witness testimonies and photos were enough to create a question of fact for a jury to decide.
Arizona Mesothelioma Lawyers
If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced Arizona mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties to help you and your family live a more comfortable life.
