IN A SUIT ARISING FROM A DECEDENT'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS, A DAMAGES AWARD IN FAVOR OF HIS ESTATE WAS NOT EXCESSIVE, AND WAS PROPERLY BASED ON GENERAL MARITIME, AND NOT VIRGINIA LAW. FURTHER, GIVEN THE FAILURE BY THE DECEDENT'S EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH VIRG
JOHN CRANE, INC. v. WANDA T. JONES, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GARLAND F. JONES, JR.
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
2007 Va. LEXIS 113
September 14, 2007, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In an action arising from a decedent's exposure to asbestos, the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News (Virginia) granted a verdict in favor of the decedent's estate, and entered a reduced damage award against the decedent's employer to conform to the amount sought in the motion for judgment. The employer thus appealed.
OVERVIEW: The employer challenged the trial court's refusal to set aside the jury verdict as excessive, evidentiary rulings regarding the testimony of another employee and two of its expert witnesses, and it asserted that the trial court should have applied Virginia law, rather than general maritime law. The instant court disagreed. First, maritime law applied, as: (1) the decedent's inhalation of asbestos fibers while engaged in the repair and construction of vessels on navigable waters could have disrupted maritime commerce; and (2) during the time the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing products, the employer marketed gaskets and packing material directly for the marine industry and advertised its products for marine engine and general ship use. Second, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony by the employer's experts, as it failed to adequately comply with Va. Sup. Ct. R. 4:1(b)(4)(A)(i). Finally, based on the instruction on damages and the evidence presented at trial, the verdict was not excessive or so out of proportion to the injuries suffered to suggest that it was not the product of a fair and impartial decision.
OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed.
