Elbert Thomas, Geraldine Thomas v. A.O. Smith Corporation, ESAB Group, Hobart Brothers Company, Lincoln Electric Company
Published: Dec. 25, 2009 | Result Date: Mar. 5, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: RG06272122 Verdict – Defense
Court
Alameda Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Robert J. Nelson
(Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP)
Brian J. Malloy
(The Brandi Law Firm)
Brian J. Panish
(Panish, Shea, Boyle & Ravipudi LLP)
Kevin R. Boyle
(Boyle Law)
Eric B. Fastiff
(Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP)
Geoffrey S. Wells
(Greene, Broillet & Wheeler LLP)
Thomas J. Brandi
(The Brandi Law Firm)
Defendant
Bruce Hurley
(King & Spalding LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Dee Silver
(medical)
Robert J. Cunitz
(technical)
Connie A. Morbach
(technical)
David Burns
(medical)
Jonathan S. Rutchick
(medical)
David Kahane
(technical)
Defendant
Karl D. Kieburtz
(medical)
Leslie J. Ungers
(technical)
David Eidelberg
(medical)
Daniel Perl
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiffs Elbert Thomas was exposed to welding fumes while at work. He developed symptoms associated with manganism and/or Parkinsonism and other neurological illnesses. He and his plaintiff Geraldine Thomas brought suit against A.O. Smith Corporation and a number of other defendants.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the act of welding causes emissions of fumes which in turn contain manganese, which is toxic to the nervous system when exceeding natural amounts in the human body. Too much manganese causes manganism, a form of Parkinsonism, which may cause Parkinson's disease and other neurological illnesses. The plaintiff was afflicted with manganism in just this way, while welding for one of the defendants. The workplace did not have precautionary measures to protect plaintiff against these health hazards and was ignorant of the dangers of the fumes. Moreover, other defendants were manufacturers or industrial consumers of welding products that controlled the trade organizations and dominated safety and health regulations in the welding industry.
Injuries
The plaintiffs claimed manganism and loss of consortium.
Result
The jury reached a verdict for the defendants. Although defendants failed to adequately warn of the potential risks of their product, this was not a substantial cause of injury. The outcomes of the remaining claims were not reported.
Other Information
FILING DATE: May 26, 2006.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390