Products Liability Law Reporter

Industrial Products

You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.

If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!

Join the Products Liability Section

Negligent exposure to asbestos

April/May 2023

From 1972 to 1981, Thomas Constantine was employed by Lenox Instrument Co. He worked as a draftsman and, later, a designer. While working at the company, he regularly was in close proximity to asbestos-containing materials used by Lenox, including Light Source products that contained heat shields fabricated from sheets of asbestos cement transite board. He was exposed to asbestos-laden dust produced by employees sawing, milling, and drilling the transite at the facility.
When Constantine was 63, he was diagnosed as having malignant mesothelioma. He later died of his disease and is survived by his wife and two adult children.

Constantine’s wife, individually and on behalf of his estate, filed suit against Lenox Instrument Co., alleging it had negligently exposed Constantine to asbestos and failed to provide a safe workplace.

The court awarded more than $2.2 million, including $700,000 for loss of consortium.

Citation: Constantine v. Lenox Instrument Co., June Term 2017 No. 00672 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. Cnty. May 13, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members Benjamin P. Shein and John P. Kopesky, both of Philadelphia.

Comment: In Miller v. Agripac, Inc., 518 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2022), Donald Miller was exposed to asbestos from family members, who took him to job sites as a child and allowed him to play with asbestos boxes. Additionally, Miller shook out his father’s work clothes while doing laundry. He also worked in the field of asbestos product fabrication and as an insulator, where he was exposed to joint compound. At age 70, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He and his wife sued Kaiser Gypsum Co., among others, alleging negligence, strict products liability, and loss of consortium. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the court entered a judgment requiring the defendant to pay over $5.2 million in damages. Affirming, an appellate court found that the trial court’s recklessness instruction was properly given and legally correct. The court also found that any error in applying joint and several liability based on when the plaintiffs’ action arose was harmless. AAJ member Nadia H. Dahab, Portland, Ore.; and Jennifer Green, Tampa, Fla., represented the plaintiffs.