Ex Navy sailor, Arnold Pritt, diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, filed product liability claims against multiple defendants, including John Crane, Inc. They blame each for having exposed him to asbestos when he served in the Navy aboard the USS Purdy from December 1961 to August 1964.
Plaintiff Arnold Pritt served in the United States Navy aboard the USS Purdy as a machinist mate from December 1961 to August 1964. He alleges that during that time, he was exposed to airborne asbestos particles from packing and gaskets manufactured by John Crane, Inc. Mr. Pritt is 79 years old and suffers from malignant mesothelioma, a fatal disease caused by exposure to asbestos.
One of the main issues in this case is the credibility and reliability of the expert witness evidence presented by the Navy Captain. In cases involving product liability and exposure to asbestos, expert witness testimony is often crucial to determining liability and assessing damages. However, the credibility and reliability of this testimony can be called into question, which can have a significant impact on the outcome of the case. John Crane argued that Captain Burger shouldn't testify in the mesothelioma case was based on their assertion because he lacked relevant expertise and that he was introducing unreliable and contradictory opinions on product composition and product warnings.
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the United States District Court of Massachusetts agreed with the magistrate judge that Captain Burger’s testimony should be allowed. This was due to his decades of experience in Navy shipbuilding, as well as of his knowledge of Navy specifications and their relationship to the use of asbestos in certain products and related warnings. The captain also boasts decades of experience in Navy shipbuilding, as well as knowledge of Navy specifications and their relationship to the use of asbestos in certain products and related warnings. Defense’s attorneys would have the opportunity to question and challenge him in court on cross examination.
Plaintiffs' expert, Captain Burger suggests, that asbestos is not actually required. Moreover, the parties dispute whether the plastic metallic packing, which does not explicitly list asbestos as a component, in fact required asbestos. In light of such factual disputes, the Court is left with a jury question as to whether the Navy promulgated reasonably precise specifications to which John Crane conformed its products.
https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/602-1
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
