In the case of Chirdon v. 3M Company, Inc., No. G.D. 22-16244 (C.P. Allegh. Co. March 24, 2025 Kline, J.), the trial court denied the Defendant’s post-trial motions in an alleged unsafe workplace trial involving allegations of asbestos exposure to a boilermaker.
According to the Opinion, the jury awarded $2.3 million dollars in compensatory damages and $1.5 million dollars in punitive damages against the Defendant employer.
In this Rule 1925 Opinion, by the trial court, the court addressed defenses raised with regard to statute of repose, the method in which the concept of outrageous conduct may be admitted into evidence at trial, issues regarding the bifurcation of the liability and punitive damages phases of the trial and challenges by the defense to the Plaintiff’s failure to utilize an expert to explain OSHA violations.
Notably the trial court rule that expert testimony was not required to establish the Defendant's duty to provide a safe workplace. Rather, the court ruled that the duty to provide a safe workplace, as well as the applicable OSHA regulations were within the understanding of ordinary jurors.
Overall, the trial court ruled that the Defendant failed to meet the standard of review for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. As such, the Defendant's post-trial motions were denied.
Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Ken Behrend of the Behrend Law Group, LLC located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.
I send thanks to Attorney Ken Behrend of the Behrend Law Group, LLC located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro from www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.