Does Evidence Support the Jury’s Verdict of Responsibility for Roberts’ Mesothelioma?
Read the theories presented in determining whether the jury’s verdict was correct given the evidence in the case of PSI Energy v. Roberts. In that case, the defendant was found liable for a man’s mesothelioma diagnosis.
PSI does not question the instructions as incorrect statements of the law, but, as we have noted, claims the evidence is insufficient to support giving any of the instructions or to support the jury’s verdict.
Our review brings us to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict and the judgment against PSI upon the law as stated in Final Instructions 18 and 19. We therefore affirm without considering the appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence on the theory presented in Final Instruction 20.
See, e.g., Picadilly, Inc. v. Colvin, 519 N.E.2d 1217, 1220-1221 (Ind. 1988) (holding that an appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment on the evidence failed because “a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must demonstrate inadequate evidence under every theory of liability, not merely one of many, before prejudice is established” and “[a] general verdict will be sustained if the evidence is sufficient to sustain any theory of liability”).
Courtesy of the Indiana Court of Appeals and the State of Indiana.
Other helpful links:
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney