PSI Energy v. Roberts: Sustained Appeal of Verdict for Mesothelioma Victim

Read the Opinion issued in the Indiana case of PSI Energy v. Roberts. Mr. Roberts, an insulator, was exposed to asbestos in his work, and was ultimately diagnosed with mesothelioma.

FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

PSI ENERGY, INC., Appellant-Defendant

vs.

WILLIAM LEE ROBERTS, JR., and BEVERLY ROBERTS, Appellees-Plaintiffs.

No. 49A02-0210-CV-883

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Kenneth H. Johnson, Judge

Cause No. 49D02-9601-MI-0001-687

January 28, 2004

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Judge

In this case, PSI Energy, Inc. (“PSI”) seeks to reverse the judgment against it in favor of William L. Roberts, Jr., and Beverly Roberts (collectively, the “Robertses”), which was rendered after a jury returned a verdict for the Robertses and against PSI.

PSI contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict under either of the theories upon which the jury was instructed and brings the appeal from the trial court’s denial of PSI’s motions for judgment on the evidence and motion to correct error.

The essence of the theories upon which the case was tried is embodied in Final Instructions 18, 19, and 20. Final Instruction 18 reads:

A landowner has a common law duty to exercise due care to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition for employees of independent contractors. The landowner in such case has an affirmative duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition consistent with the purpose of the landowner’s invitation to the independent contractor.

Other helpful links:

Asbestos Asbestos
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney