Defendants in Mesothelioma Case

Under such a finding, CPLR 1603 (7) instead, of being responsible for only 10% of the verdict, the defendant is liable for the full amount of the verdict. It is that finding of recklessness as well as the size of the verdict that defendant Chrysler challenges.

Relying on Maltese v Westinghouse Electric Corp., 89 NY2d 955 (1997) which held that general awareness of the risk of injury to persons exposed to asbestos without the opportunity to warn was insufficient to establish recklessness. Defendant argues that the same rule applies to this plaintiff.

Defendant had to be aware of the danger that plaintiff was exposed to and to have had an opportunity to warn him. Finding that the evidence did not support such a finding, Maltese set aside the finding of recklessness.

Therefore, an inquiry into the evidence about the extent of defendant Chrysler's knowledge of the danger that plaintiff was exposed to and the opportunity it had to warn the plaintiff needs to be undertaken.