Page 20 - 2016_0523_TOPVERDCITS

2015
TOP VERDICTS OF NEW YORK
-Continued from p19
NUMBER TEN
EMPLOYMENT
Defamation — Sexual Harassment — Retaliation — Wrongful Termination
Wall Street nancier forced intercourse with employee, plaintiff claimed
TRIAL LENGTH
TRIAL DELIBERATIONS
JURY COMPOSITION
3 weeks
2 day s
1 male/ 5 female
FACTS & ALLEGATIONS On Jan. 6, 2014, plaintiff Walter Miller, 62, a retiree, learned that he suffers mesothelioma, which is an aggressive, incurable cancer that can result from ingestion or inhalation of fibers of asbestos.
During the 1970s, Miller worked at shops that serviced automobiles. His work involved the grinding of automotive brakes that contained asbestos. Miller claimed that he used a grinder that had been manufactured by the now-defunct Ammco Tools Inc. He further claimed that his mesothelioma stemmed from his inhalation of asbestos-containing dust that the grinder emitted during its use.
Miller sued Ammco Tools’ successor, La Vergne, Tenn.-based Hennessy Industries Inc.; a company that was believed to have manufactured brakes that Miller serviced, Woodcliff Lake, N.J.-based BMW of North America, LLC; and other companies that were believed to have distributed, manufactured and/or sold asbestos-containing products that were used in areas in which Miller had worked. Miller alleged that the defendants negligently failed to provide warnings that disclosed the hazards that could have stemmed from the use of their products.
Miller’s counsel discontinued the claims against BMW of North America and other defendants; other defendants negotiated settlements; and other defendants were dismissed. The matter proceeded to a trial against Hennessy Industries.
Miller’s expert engineer and expert scientist agreed that Ammco Tools’ grinder released asbestos-containing dust that was a substantial cause of Miller’s mesothelioma. Miller’s counsel contended that Ammco Tools knew that its grinder released dust that contained asbestos, but that it did not provide a warning that disclosed the associated dangers. They contended that Ammco Tools recklessly disregarded the safety of its product’s users.
During the 1970s, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration promulgated standards that addressed limitation of workers’ exposure to asbestos. Defense counsel claimed that contemporaneous tests established that Ammco Tools’ grinder met and exceeded OSHA’s standards. They further contended that epidemiological studies have not demonstrated that brake-grinding increases a person’s susceptibility to mesothelioma.
Defense counsel also noted that Ammco Tools’ grinder did not contain asbestos, and they claimed that Miller’s work involved the use of brakes, clutches and gaskets that contained asbestos. They argued that Hennessy Industries is not liable for the effects of other parties’ asbestos-containing products.
INJURIES/DAMAGES On Jan. 6, 2014, Miller learned that he suffers mesothelioma. He underwent chemotherapy and the application of radiation that was intended to prevent progression of his cancer, but his condition is terminal. He is not expected to survive beyond 2016.
Miller sought recovery of a total of $35 million for past and future pain and suffering.
RESULT The jury found that Miller was exposed to asbestos that was released during the use of Ammco Tools’ grinder, that Ammco Tools did not provide a warning that adequately disclosed the hazards that could have stemmed from its grinder’s use, that Ammco Tools recklessly disregarded the safety of its grinder’s users, and that Ammco Tools’ actions and inaction were a substantial cause of Miller’s mesothelioma. Hennessy Industries was assigned 86 percent of the liability, and the remaining liability was assigned to nonparties that were believed to have distributed, manufactured and/or sold asbestos- containing products that were used in areas in which Miller had worked.
The jury determined that Miller’s damages totaled $25 million.
WALTER
MILLER $10,000,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering
$15,000,000 Personal Injury: future pain and suffering (one year)
EDITOR’S COMMENT This report is based on information that was provided by plain- tiff’s counsel. Additional information was gleaned from court documents and from an article that was published by Mealey’s Daily News Update. Hennessy Industries’ counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls, and the remaining defendants’ counsel was not asked to contribute.
AMOUNT
TYPE CASE VENUE JUDGE
DATE PLAINTIFF(S)
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S)
PLAINTIFF EXPERT(S)
TRIAL LENGTH
TRIAL DELIBERATIONS
JURY COMPOSITION
$18,000,000
Verdict-Plaintiff
Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC US District Court, SDNY Paul G. Gardephe
July 22, 2015
Hanna Bouveng (Age: 23 Years)
David S. Ratner (lead), Morelli Alters Ratner Law Firm, Manhattan, NY
Martha McBrayer, Morelli Alters Ratner Law Firm, Manhattan, NY
David Schwartz M.D.; Occupational Medicine; Denver, CO Steven Markowitz M.D.; Occupational Medicine; Queens, NY
11 days
4 hours
4 male/ 4 female
20 VerdictSearch’s Top New York Verdicts of 2015
FACTS & ALLEGATIONS On Oct. 1, 2013, plaintiff Hanna Bouveng, 24, a native and citizen of Sweden, was hired as a paid intern for New York Global Group (NYGG), in Manhattan, pursuant to the terms of her J1- Visa. She was hired as the firm’s Director of Corporate Communications, and her direct supervisor was NYGG Chief Executive Officer Benjamin Wey. On April 22, 2014, Bouveng was terminated from her position. Bouveng claimed that she was subjected to sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, battery, assault, discrimination based on her gender, and a hostile work environment.
Bouveng sued Wey and NYG Capital, d/b/a NYGG. She also sued one of Wey’s subsidiaries, FNL Medica, LLC, which published TheBlot Magazine. Plaintiff brought causes of action for quid pro quo sexual harassment based on a sexually hostile work environment, defamation, retaliation, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and discrimination on the basis of her gender. She contended that Wey’s quid pro quo sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation constituted a violation of New York State Human Rights Law § 290. She further contended that defendant’s actions constituted a violation of New York City Human Rights Law Title 8.
The hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, gender discrimination were dismissed before trial. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was severed. On or about October 2013, Bouveng claimed Wey aggressively insisted her company at business dinners and on trips. She claimed that during two business trips, to Boston to Dubai, Wey booked only one hotel room for them to share and claimed that she was
forced to share a room and bed with him.
In December 2013, Bouveng alleged that Wey urged her to move into an apartment that
was closer to Wey’s office. Plaintiff claimed that Wey offered to pay the additional costs of living alone and to sign as her guarantor. She claimed that in December 2013, after she moved into the apartment, Wey accompanied her to her apartment and produced a box of condoms.
From January 2014 to February 2014, Bouveng claimed that that Wey loaded her with alcohol and forced her to have intercourse on three occasions. Thereafter, she claimed to refuse his sexual advances.
In February 2014, Bouveng claimed that Wey began to stalk her. She claimed that he targeted her as an employee and created a “professional development program” tailored to her position. In mid-February 2014, Bouveng alleged that Wey contacted her father in
-Continued on p22