The surviving family of a late shipyard worker says that shipyard asbestos exposure caused their father’s mesothelioma and subsequent death.

Plaintiff Patricia B., on behalf of herself and as a representative of her late husband Vincent B.’s estate has filed a lawsuit over her husband’s mesothelioma, along with her children Karen W., Laura R., Jennifer H., and Christopher B. She and her children claim that Vincent worked on shipyards during his career, and was exposed to asbestos during his work.

Allegedly, Vincent worked at the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, Md., and his work included working on, inspecting, maintaining, and constructing ships at the yard. Patricia says that he was exposed to numerous materials that contained asbestos and that this shipyard asbestos exposure caused mesothelioma. 

As a result, Patricia aims to hold the companies behind the products responsible for her husband’s death. She says that the companies were “miners, manufacturers, processors, importers, converters, compounders, merchants, installers, removers, sellers, distributors, marketers and/or sellers of products containing asbestos.”

Patricia’s shipyard asbestos exposure lawsuit argues that the companies knew that asbestos was dangerous to human health, but failed to take adequate action to protect Vincent from the dangers of asbestos. Allegedly, they knew or should have known that asbestos was dangerous because the mineral was linked to lung cancer as early as the early 20th century and other cancers including mesotheliomas as early as the middle 20th century.

For many years, asbestos was a favored building material because it is resistant to heat and its long fibers make it durable. However, when people breathe in asbestos fibers, they become exposed to a range of serious conditions like lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The shipyard asbestos exposure lawsuit argues that the companies that produce the asbestos-containing materials knew or should have known that the materials caused mesothelioma, but negligently or intentionally failed to warn Vincent so he could take steps to protect his health.

Additionally, the shipyard asbestos exposure lawsuit says that the companies’ inclusion of asbestos in their products made the products defective and unreasonably dangerous.” The shipyard asbestos exposure lawsuit argues their sale of the products was a “wanton and reckless disregard for human life,” as was their decision to not inform Vincent and other people of the dangers posed by exposure to asbestos.

Patricia notes that Vincent’s regular duties included handling asbestos-containing materials, so his shipyard asbestos exposure could not be avoided as he continued to do his job.

Patricia and Vincent’s children aim to hold the companies accountable for Vincent’s physical injury and loss of life. They also aim to hold the companies responsible for the emotional injury of losing their family member, and for the financial injury caused by his death and the subsequent loss of income they suffered. As Vincent’s wife, Patricia also aims to hold the companies accountable for the loss of consortium she suffered as a result of her husband’s illness and death.

The Shipyard Asbestos Exposure Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-03911-JKB, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.