Workplace exposure to asbestos, particularly of an historic nature, is well documented and largely considered the most prevalent form of asbestos exposure globally. However, there is increasing evidence of malignant mesothelioma exposure in homes, as evidenced by the recent case of a man whose childhood asbestos exposure led to a mesothelioma diagnosis.
Mr Galier, an Oklahoma man who received a malignant mesothelioma diagnosis in 2012, explained that he recalled throughout his childhood in the 1970s seeing a product marked with the branding of Murco Wall Products when he was at his father’s construction sites.
Mr Galier named Murco as a defendant in a mesothelioma lawsuit, accusing the company of product liability and negligence.
Texas-based Murco argued that, because they were based in Texas, the Oklahoma court where the claim was filed had no jurisdiction over their business.
Murco’s argument that they weren’t subject to the Oklahoma justice system was denied by the district court, which found them at least forty per cent responsible for the mesothelioma diagnosis of Mr Galier.
Interestingly, through the appeals process, which ultimately saw the damages to Mr Galier upheld, the company argued that it should not be held responsible because there was no clear link between the company’s product and the claimant’s exposure.
The court noted in response that the victim does not require the victim to provide that level of proof, according to the law, and that a company considered ‘non-resident’ in the state could be held to account for related misconduct while utilising the privilege of conducting business within the state. The court also pointed out the company had pursued the state of Oklahoma as a market for its asbestos-containing products.