Tuesday, August 12th, 2008
Marvin Penn, at the age of 71, achieved an important victory on June 27 when he and wife Josephine Penn received a $16.25 million dollar verdict in an asbestos-related lawsuit.
Penn was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure during the 1960s. Between 1963 and 1999, Penn worked as a mail carrier. However, during the 1960s, he considered a career change and attended dental technician school. While in attendance, he was exposed to asbestos while making dental castings. The task involved making wax replicas of teeth, and a type of dental tape which happened to contain asbestos.
The trial, the victory, and the size of the verdict were all uncommon, as it is believed to be the first successful asbestos-related lawsuit to name a defendant that manufactured dental tape.
The jury who heard the case attributed 20 percent of the liability to Kerr Corp, a dental supply company. They were the sole defendant in the trial.
Penn’s attorney said, “The jury believed Mr. Penn and did not believe Kerr’s defense that the product it distributed did not release harmful asbestos dust, and that Kerr could not have known at the time that it was dangerous.â€
The three-week trial involved state of the art medical testimony. The jury heard about the products manufactured by Kerr Corp and another dental supply company, Dentsply (formerly Randsom & Randolf). Dentsply, however, settled before the verdict, and the jury attributed 20 percent of the liability in the case to that company.
The jury also heard about other asbestos exposure incidents suffered by Marvin Penn, among them an incident relating to spray-on asbestos coating. Penn testified that he worked at a post office adjacent to the former World Trade Center, and was present while the building was being sprayed with asbestos. The jury attributed 40 percent of the liability in the case to the spray.
Lastly, the jury confirmed Todd Shipyards was 20 percent liable for Marvin Penn’s mesothelioma. Penn’s father worked at the shipyard as a steamfitter, and therefore Penn may have been at risk of secondary asbestos exposure.
The case illustrates not only how intricate asbestos litigation can be, but also the many ways asbestos exposure can occur. Without the assistance of a mesothelioma lawyer, Penn may not have received compensation to cover the immense cost of treating mesothelioma.

Related Topics ►



