For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mr. K.B. and his wife, Mrs. B.
Recently, the California Court of Appeals granted a mesothelioma victim, Mr. K.B., and his wife a new trial against Mission Stucco. The original decision had failed to accurately address the apportionment of fault among the defendants. Originally, the trial court and its jury had found that Mission Stucco's products were a substantial factor in Mr. K.B.'s illness but did not hold the company liable. Instead, the court attributed fault to other parties. The original jury had awarded Mr. K.B. $2 million in non-economic damages, and Mrs. B was awarded an additional $3 million. However, the jury assigned 10% of the fault to Kaiser Gypsum and 90% to other entities. Mission Stucco was awarded 0% of the blame. The Court of Appeals found this decision to be significantly inconsistent.
The initial trial court's decision was so confusing that it prompted the claimant to request a new trial. Mr. K.B. made three arguments. First, the plaintiff argued that the court excluded critical evidence. Second, he argued that the damages awarded were insufficient. Lastly, Mr. K.B. argued that the verdict was inconsistent. The first two arguments about evidence being excluded and insufficient damages were dismissed. However, the court agreed with the third argument that the verdict was inconsistent. The court awarded Mr. K.B. a new trial to address that issue alone. Both parties filed an appeal, with Mr. K.B. seeking a new trial that would address all the issues and Mission Stucco contesting the limited scope of the new trial.
The California Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decision and sided with Mr. K.B. The court agreed that the decision was inconsistent. The appeals court noted that the trial court made a huge mistake when it determined that Mission Stucco's product was defectively designed but failed to apportion any percentage of fault to the company. The appeals court noted that after the trial court found that the defendant's products had a design defect, there was no reasonable basis for the jury to find that the defect was both a substantial factor and not a factor in causing the claimant's injury.
Despite Mission Stucco's argument that the inconsistencies were irrelevant since Mr. K.M. and his wife weren't entitled to additional or different damages, the appeals court disagreed. The court found that upholding a verdict with such inherent inconsistencies was not right.
The appeals court decision allows for the reapportionment of the damages the trial court awarded to Mr. K.B. and his wife. According to the appeals court, Mission Stucco's argument required accepting an inconsistent decision. The court deemed that unacceptable.
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 pay for your medical treatment and help you and your family live a more comfortable life.
