March 21, 2008, Texas - The trial of Whisnat vs. DuPont has wrapped up its fifth week and is nearing its conclusion.

The plaintiff in the case is the estate of Willis Whisnat Jr., a former B.F. Shaw pipefitter who had worked as an independent contractor at DuPont in 1966. Whisnat’s family claims he developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure that occurred during his time at DuPont. Whisnat died in 1999 at age 72.

This week, DuPont’s attorneys produced video testimony of a former DuPont safety engineer who claimed to have developed safety programs for the chemical company as early as the 1950s.

The safety engineer, Kenneth Kruper, worked at DuPont between the 1950s and 1970s. Kruper testified that pipefitters and insulators who were working with asbestos would generate large amounts of asbestos dust. He also said that he would shut down the work area when the dust got so thick that “you could not see to the other side of the room.”

Kruper also testified that while the hazards of asbestos were a “mystery” during the 1950s and 1960s, he researched asbestos and worked with the chemical company to develop safety programs. Kruper said that DuPont put safety first and required its independent contractors to follow safety protocols.

Previous testimony from the plaintiffs alleged that DuPont knew about the risks of asbestos as early as the 1940s, and instead of focusing on employee safety chose to protect the company from lawsuits.

In response, DuPont argued that its 1940s studied focused on people who had been “heavily” exposed to asbestos, and also that the company took steps to protect its workers before the Occupational Safety and Health administration adopted guidelines in the 1970s.

Witnesses for the plaintiff also included former DuPont workers who testified that they had never seen Whisnat wearing a respirator.

DuPont’s response was that their 1960s and 1970s safety policies required workers in “extreme” conditions to use respirators. The plaintiff’s attorneys responded with testimony from an industrial hygienist who said that the workers could not be expected to know when conditions qualified as “extreme.”

Previously DuPont’s attorneys had attempted to file for mistrial on the grounds that plaintiff expert Dr. Gary K. Friedman discussed a document that should have constituted inadmissible evidence. In addition they claimed the document had not been disclosed to DuPont.

DuPont’s attorneys also claimed that the way the document was used would have prejudiced the jury.

The document was an x-ray report from 1986. The x-ray, which was of Willis Whisnat, was pronounced to be “clear.” Dr. Friedman said the x-ray results were evidence that Whisnat’s previous work as a pipefitter for Neches Butane was not significant in terms of asbestos exposure, due to the latency of mesothelioma development.

Mesothelioma tends to develop several decades after asbestos exposure, meaning that timing is an important factor in determining when and where the exposure occurred.

The defense, however, said that the document had not been properly admitted as evidence, and that it therefore should not have been presented to the jury at all. However, the motion to dismiss the document was denied.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm and is filed under Asbestos Exposure, Asbestos Litigation, Jobsite Exposure, Texas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. Responses are currently closed, but you trackback from your own site.