 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoskins .v Business Men's Assurance6/30/2003
bility of others as well as the workers immediately concerned becoming involved should always be considered." The report also indicates that Dr. Knox met with the president of Keasby & Mattison (a T&N;United States subsidiary) concerning "the way they were dealing with abnormal chest x-rays among their workers." In addition, Dr. Knox reports back to T&N;that " he legislative framework under which industries operate in the U.S.A. makes it difficult for us here to follow the lines of thought which prompt action over there in the matter of standards of industrial practice. In many industries the employers seem so far in front of legislation as to have created a special code of practice for themselves. In other industries, such as coal mining, the difficulties in improving conditions are so great that industrial practice lags behind legislation. The special problem posed by dust inhalation which may have effects many years after would seem to demand a forward looking approach."
A 1960 article by Dr. J.C. Wagner in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine, in which he also detailed mesothelioma case studies in South Africa, reported on a case involving a connection between mesothelioma of the pleura and "the removal of asbestos lagging from old pipes [which] created a very dusty atmosphere." This report was discussed by members of the "Asbestosis Research Council," of which Dr. Knox of T&N;was an "Executive Member of Research Committee."
Defendants' own expert, Dr. Lawrence Repsher, testified that the asbestos manufacturers "have known for a long time that inhaling asbestos fibers in significant concentrations over a period of time, no matter how they get into the air, dangerous."
Another of the T&N;internal documents discovered by Dr. Castleman and detailed in his book was a July 25, 1962, T&N;internal memorandum ("the 1962 T&N;Memo"). After documenting T&N;s previous responses to and dealings with Sprayed Limpet's known hazards and as a lead-in to the contents of the 1962 T&N;Memo, Dr. Castleman explains in his book that " espite earlier assurances to others that technical advances in damping sprayed asbestos had minimized or eliminated the health hazard, a more sanguine view was privately expressed by Alexander Marshall, who was about to become Managing Director of T&N;s J. W. Roberts subsidiary," which manufactured the Sprayed Limpet. Dr. Castleman points out that Mr. Marshall "was responding to a report that the government might 'eventually prohibit' asbestos-based insulation." In this memo, Mr. Marshall wrote:
"The awkward thing about this is that even if we succeed in perfecting a way of applying the material by dustless and 'safe' method (and that is a big "if"), we are still liable to come unstuck according to Mr. Smith when somebody eventually comes in to remove the asbestos. I cannot see much hope of rendering this 'safe' from a health point of view so that reliance would still have to be put on protective measures. " (Emphasis added.)
B. Defendants' Argument:
As set forth above, Defendants argue that the issue is whether Plaintiffs presented clear and convincing evidence that as of the date of manufacture -- no later than 1963 -- T&N;had actual knowledge that, after application, Sprayed Limpet was unreasonably dangerous to the class of persons of which Mr. Hoskins was a member. Although they acknowledge the admission of the evidence relied upon by Plaintiffs as set forth above, they insist that " lthough these documents reflect developing information regarding pulmonary diseases among mining, manufacturing, and insulation workers" and the health risks associated with certain types of asbe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|