HUGO PARKER Defeated Siblings’ Motion To Consolidate Their Mesothelioma Actions
A brother (Lohmann) and sister (Grimes), each alleging mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos, moved to consolidate their cases for trial arguing that trying the cases separately would be inefficient and require the brother to testify twice, as he is the sister’s primary product identification witness. Defendants objected citing the likelihood of juror confusion and the disparity in the siblings’ alleged asbestos exposure.
The Court ultimately agreed with Hugo Parker: “The court therefore finds merit to defendants’ argument that there is a significant risk of prejudice to them with respect to Grimes’ claims based on hearing substantial evidence of John Lohmann’s 36-year history of alleged asbestos exposures and conflating his alleged mesothelioma-causing exposures and Ms. Grimes’ more limited exposures particularly since they are brother and sister, grew up in the same household, and that John will be testifying regarding his work and his Father’s work that caused Ms. Grimes’ alleged take-home exposures from 1969-1973 and 1974-1976 and possibly on a greatly reduced basis between 1976 and 2000.”
“Further,” the court concluded, “expert witness testimony regarding Ms. Grimes’ take-home exposure theory is likely to be irrelevant (to) Mr. Lohmann’s theory of direct, work-related exposures, and approximately 20 named defendants in the Grimes action are not defendants to Lohmann II because they settled Mr. Lohmann’s claims in Lohmann I. All of these circumstances increase the likelihood of jury confusion if the cases are consolidated and tried together.”
See the Tentative Ruling.
Read the HarrisMartin Article.
Read the General Order
