The jury in a Union Carbide asbestos lawsuit recently heard opening statements from the company and the widow of a former employee who died from mesothelioma.

According to the plaintiff counsel’s opening statement, Charley E. was a 74 year old man who lived a “full, joyful life” before his mesothelioma diagnosis in 2009.

Charley worked at an adhesive manufacturing plant from 1954 to 1994, during which he was allegedly exposed to Union Carbide asbestos. Documents allegedly show that, from 1969 to 1984, Union Carbide shipped 40,000 pounds of Calidria brand asbestos and 7,000 pounds of another grade of asbestos to Charley’s facility.

At the facility, it was Charley’s job to measure out and mix the ingredients used to make the adhesive products. According to the plaintiff’s attorney, Charley must have been exposed to Union Carbide asbestos while working at the plant, based on his job duties, the amount of asbestos received by the plant, and testimony from two of Charley’s former coworkers.

In her opening statement, plaintiff’s counsel told the jury that evidence will show that Charley’s mesothelioma, which killed him in early 2011, was caused by long term exposure to Union Carbide asbestos. The attorney called asbestos a “sneaky killer” due to the fact that it is invisible, odorless, and tasteless so individuals don’t know that they’ve inhaled or ingested it.

“I think you’ll find the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that Charley was absolutely exposed to Union Carbide’s asbestos,” the attorney said.

Charley’s widow, Thomasina F., brought wrongful death and products liability claims against Union Carbide in 2011 alleging that the company was accountable for her husband’s death. In May 2017, the New Jersey Appellate Division revived the suit after a trial court’s dismissal of the case. The reversal found that the Union Carbide asbestos shipments and coworker testimonies were sufficient evidence to send the lawsuit to a jury.

Union Carbide’s lawyers also gave their opening statement to the jury. Defense counsel told the jury that Long’s opening statement hadn’t been based on evidence and was instead full of assertions. Counsel said that the actual evidence relevant to the case doesn’t show that Charley had been exposed to Union Carbide asbestos.

“They’re also going to say that the exposure that he had, no one can tell you when it happened, how often it happened, how much of it happened, whether it happened once a week, once a year, once every 10 years,” the defendants’ attorney said in his opening statement.

He noted that there were a variety of products made at Charley’s plant which were made in different buildings. Based on this, Masterson said it was possible that Charley worked at the plant without touching Union Carbide asbestos. He also said that the only brand which Charley was witnessed handling was Johns Manville, not Union Carbide.

The Union Carbide Asbestos Lawsuit is Case No. L-4820-11 in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Middlesex.