Asbestos Mesothelioma Widow’s $2.3 Million Award Postponed Once More

Back in April, 2015, an appellate court asserted a lower court’s verdict and ruling to grant $2.3 million in reparation upon the conclusion of an Asbestos lawsuit filed by Frank and Charlotte Vinciguerra against the drug’s makers.

The Asbestos lawsuit is Charlotte Vinciguerra v. Bayer Cropscience Inc. et al., Case number 447 EAL 2015, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District.

In spite of the appeal, the case isnt over since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided to hear a challenge by a defendant to find out if a defendant might have the legal aptitude to ask jurors to agree whether or not a product purported to have contributed to a diagnosis of mesothelioma on the part of Frank Vinciguerra may have undeniably been “irrationally perilous.”

Having lost her husband, Frank, to asbestos mesothelioma, Charlotte Vinciguerra has no option but to endure the process alone after the latest setback.

According to court records, Frank Vinciguerra worked as a sheet metal worker for E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co. at its Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New Jersey for more than 30 years.

In his Asbestos lawsuit, Mr. Vinciguerra claims he was often forced to fashion and set up gaskets made from Cranite, a component manufactured by Crane Co. and purported to have asbestos. Vinciguerra would later be diagnosed with malevolent asbestos cancer – Mesothelioma – and afterward loss his battle with the deadly malady.

Amongst other issues, Crane Co., it has been reported, set forth its position that the industrial products company was bigoted by the original trial court’s refusal to allow a jury instruction saying that a product is defective when the lack of instructions or warnings render it “not reasonably safe.”

In April, the appellate court disagreed with that notion.

“Upon review of the record, we conclude that the requested instruction was not justified by Crane’s notion of the case and the evidence it offered at trial,” the appellate court said in April. “Crane’s defense was not that Cranite was not ‘unreasonably dangerous.’ Rather, Crane affirmed that Cranite was not dangerous at all.”

Crane appealed the appellate court’s decision to Pennsylvania’s highest court, submitting numerous issues. It has been reported the Court dismissed Crane Co.’s petition in virtually every aspect save for one: whether the 2014 Tincher v. Omega Flex Inc. decision permits “a defendant in strict-liability claim based on a failure-to-warn theory [the] right to have a jury determine whether the product was ‘unreasonably dangerous.”

The Tincher verdict struck down the longstanding 1978 judgment in Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., which barred all proof of negligence in strict liability cases. The Tincher verdict also adopted a shift in jury directives.

At the moment, there is no indication that Crane Co. will pursue the matter to a higher court if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down its petition. However, there is no sign to suggest it will give up yet. Thus, Frank Vinciguerra’s widow has no choice but to continue seeking compensation for her loss.

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on TumblrShare on RedditEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *