San Francisco, California – A former San Francisco Bay Area couple who filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in 2005 have won for a second time. The jury in the case decided in their favor in July 2006, and the couple have now won their appeal case, too.

The state appeals court upheld an award of more than $11 million that was granted by the jury in the original case. In the 2006 verdict, the jury awarded over $1.1 million to Joseph Garza, and $400,000 to wife Mary Garza. The jury also awarded $10 million in punitive damages against the defendant, Asbestos Corp.

Joseph Garza was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2005, and the couple, who are now residents of Colorado, filed a lawsuit against Asbestos Corp in the same year.

During the trial, Joseph Garza testified that he cannot breathe without an oxygen unit, that he can walk only half a block at a time, and that his health problems had made it increasingly difficult to care for his wife. Mary Garza, who also had health problems, was almost entirely dependent on her husband for care and support.

The jury also heard how Joseph Garza had joined the Navy at the age of 17, and had worked for over a decade on ships in locations such as Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco.

Garza’s work involved using asbestos-containing products to repair boilers. He was not provided with protective clothing, or any warnings about the potential health issues associated with asbestos exposure.

Joseph Garza was also exposed to asbestos-containing insulation in later employment. However, Asbestos Corp, as the manufacturer of the sealant used by the Navy at the time Garza was in its employment, was assigned 75% of the responsibility for Garza’s illness by the San Francisco jury.

The First District Court of Appeal rendered their verdict on the last Friday in March, and upheld the verdict originally given by the jury in the 2006 trial. The appeal court echoed the jury’s sentiments in saying that Asbestos Corp had acted “reprehensibly.”

The three-judge appeals panel cited testimony that had been given during the trial, saying that Asbestos Corp had “intentionally marketed a defective product knowing that it might cause injury and death.”

In the trial, it was shown that Asbestos Corp had been aware of the dangers of asbestos since the 1940s, but had sold the product until the 1970s without attaching any warning labels.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 10th, 2008 at 5:21 pm and is filed under Asbestos Exposure, Asbestos Litigation, California. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.