Rhode Island Mesothelioma Lawyer and Legal Information

Rhode Island is ranked 39th in the nation for mesothelioma cases, despite a relatively high ranking in the nation for deaths resulting from the cancer. Until very recently, it was the only one of the 50 states that had not acknowledged or formally recognized a doctrine that is often used to bar lawsuits brought in jurisdictions other than the plaintiff's home jurisdiction.

In a 2005 decision, a Rhode Island Superior Court denied the petition of 39 defendants in various asbestos-related cases to dismiss the suits for reason of 'forum non conveniens.' The principle of forum non conveniens is used in 46 states to dismiss cases that have no significant connection to the jurisdiction in which they are filed. Until very recently, Rhode Island did not recognize forum non conveniens. The 39 defendants appealed the Superior Court's decision, and in an opinion published May 9, 2008 the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated "no litigation crisis exists" at present, that the court was not "mired in asbestos litigation," and that there had been no deluge of asbestos cases over the last two decades. To the contrary, the court found that the asbestos docket had been neither unmanageable nor unwieldy. The trial justice reasoned that it was of "paramount importance" that the parties have their cases heard as promptly as possible and that asbestos-related litigation defied containment by boundaries. (Scallion et al v. A.W. Chesterton)

Despite this, the Supreme Court reversed the finding of the lower court, with some very telling commentary. In part, the opinion written by Justice Suttell for the court reads, "Nevertheless, we must also be cognizant of the strains such litigation places on Rhode Island's judicial resources. Courts across the country have experienced a burgeoning of products-liability and negligence litigation, much of which, as the trial justice noted, transcends geographical boundaries. Our courts in Rhode Island must stand open to provide remedies to those who have been injured and to treat all litigants fairly. Our courts, however, need not resolve disputes of all persons who choose to file suit in Rhode Island."

As of May 9, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed more than 200 years of judicial history and for the first time formally acknowledged the doctrine of forum non conveniens, giving defendants a ready defense to request dismissal in the state's courts.

Determination of Liability

Rhode Island follows a pure comparative liability system in determining liability for the purposes of assigning damages. Under a pure comparative liability system, a plaintiff may recover damages even if they are found 99 percent at fault in causing their own injuries. If a plaintiff is found to share the fault at all, the amount of damages awarded are reduced in proportion to the percentage of blame assigned to the plaintiff. In other words, if a plaintiff is found 25 percent at fault in causing their own injury and damages were determined to be $100,000, the plaintiff can recover $75,000.

In cases involving multiple defendants, Rhode Island follows the common law principle of joint and several liability in determining judgments. Under joint and several liability, any defendant named in the judgment can be held liable to the plaintiff for the entire amount of the judgment regardless of their share of the fault.

Rhode Island Asbestos Litigation

Rhode Island requires that plaintiffs meet a high standard of product identification, proving that they were actually exposed to products manufactured by or distributed by the defendants. A look at a recent Rhode Island court decision illustrates these principles.

3/2008 - LaPointe v. 3M Company et al: Homasote, a defendant in the case, moved for summary judgment, alleging that the defendant had not met the threshold obligation of product identification. LaPointe stated in affidavit that he was uncertain whether sheetrock he had worked with was a Homasote product. The court ruled against the defendant, permitting the case to go forward, concluding with the statement "this Court reiterates that the questions of whether the Plaintiff was ever exposed to asbestos by working near the Defendant's product or whether such exposure was the cause of Plaintiff's injury are questions for the jury to determine."

State Index