Jurors rejected a cancer survivor’s claim Monday that toxic chemicals from a Texas railroad tie plant where her husband worked caused the disease that required the removal of her stomach.

This is not a benzene case, but I found it interesting because:

• It involves indirect exposure
• it alleges exposure to an industrial product
• it involves an allegation that the stomach cancer was caused by the product

In this case the plaintiff claimed that her cancer was caused by exposure to creosote that came home on her husband’s clothes. 

Faust washed her husband’s stained clothes daily for nearly two decades. They were covered with coal-tar creosote, used to treat railroad ties to withstand weather and termites for up to 30 years. After her 1998 diagnosis, doctors removed her stomach, and now food moves directly to her intestines.

This is similar to Mesothelioma cases.  In many of those cases exposure through a spouse (secondary exposure) is sufficient to prove a claim.  Indirect exposure is not something that we see in benzene cases.  Most of the cases we review involve workers directly exposed to benzene or other petroleum products containing it.

Faust said she was not in court Monday because she was not feeling well. Her attorney, Jared Woodfill, said the verdict in the case likely hinged on Faust’s history of smoking.

"We knew that was the biggest hurdle we were facing," he said.

Smoking is also a factor in benzene cases.
HoustonChronicle.com

Tags: cigarette, Court Decisions, tort, toxic, toxic tort, verdict