Maltese v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 1997)

Our plain-English summary of Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Court of Appeals, February 11, 1997).

Mario Maltese and Savino Stallone worked as mechanics at Consolidated Edison powerhouses in New York City, Maltese from 1951 to 1985 and Stallone from 1946 to 1981. Both developed mesothelioma, which the opinion links to dust from maintaining and repairing asbestos-insulated turbines that Westinghouse sold to Con Edison. Maltese's estate and Stallone and his wife sued Westinghouse and others. The jury found Westinghouse 20% liable, found it showed reckless disregard for the workers' safety, which would make it jointly liable for noneconomic damages, and awarded punitive damages. The trial court set aside the reckless disregard and punitive findings after trial, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed. Applying a gross negligence standard from an earlier case, it held the evidence showed at most Westinghouse's general awareness that long exposure to high concentrations of asbestos could cause injury, not that these workers were at risk when it could have warned them. It did not decide what standard applies to punitive damages.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 11, 1997
• Citation: 678 N.E.2d 467
• Stage: Appeal from post-trial motions
• State: New York

Outcome. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, upholding the trial court's setting aside of the jury's findings of reckless disregard and punitive damages against Westinghouse, so the plaintiffs lost on those issues.

What the court held. Reckless disregard requires a gross negligence standard: intentionally acting in disregard of a known or obvious risk so great that harm is highly probable, with conscious indifference to the outcome. General awareness that high, prolonged asbestos exposure could cause injury did not meet that standard.

Issues decided: Fault, Apportionment and Settlement Credits, Failure to Warn, Trial Procedure and Discovery, Punitive Damages.

Why this case is relevant

In this memorandum decision, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the setting aside of a jury's finding that Westinghouse acted with "reckless disregard" for two powerhouse mechanics' safety. That finding would have made it jointly liable for their noneconomic damages. The court applied a gross negligence standard it had earlier adopted under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Under that standard, the defendant must have intentionally acted in disregard of a known or obvious risk so great that harm was highly probable, with conscious indifference to the outcome. Evidence of Westinghouse's general awareness that long, heavy asbestos exposure could cause injury fell short, because it did not show that these workers were at risk when Westinghouse could have warned them. The court expressly left open what standard governs punitive damages.

Later New York trial courts in asbestos cases quote this decision as the test for reckless disregard. In 2014 the Appellate Division relied on its "obvious" risk language to uphold a jury's recklessness finding. Defendants have invoked it to argue that general awareness of asbestos hazards cannot support a recklessness verdict. One trial court cited it for the punitive damages standard, a question this decision did not decide.

This section was drafted with the assistance of WARD, our Worldwide Asbestos Reference Desk, from the opinion and the later decisions in our library that cite it. It is not legal advice.

The people and their exposure

• Mario Maltese: mesothelioma; died

• Savino Stallone: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Westinghouse Electric Corp. (manufacturer)

Later decisions citing this one

17 later decisions in our library cite this one:

• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (New York Court of Appeals, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed both Appellate Division orders, leaving in place the plaintiffs' jury verdicts against Crane Co. in the Dummitt and Suttner mesothelioma cases.
• Konstantin v. Tishman Liquidating Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2014). The Appellate Division affirmed both jury-verdict judgments for the plaintiffs (Konstantin against Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Dummitt against Crane Co.) and dismissed the appeal from the order denying Crane's post-trial motion as subsumed in the judgment appeal; one justice, joined by another, dissented in part as to Dummitt.
• Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1997). The court denied Raymark's motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial and amendment of the judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions, except that it set aside the McPadden award for loss of parental consortium.
• Tippin v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court granted American International Industries partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Corey Tippin's punitive damages claim against it and denied the rest of its motion, leaving causation for trial.
• Petro v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied the motions by Tishman, Mario & Dibono and Port Authority to set aside the jury verdict for plaintiff James Petro, to enter judgment for them, to order a new trial, or to reduce the damages.
• Moxam v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The trial court granted defendant Graybar Electric Company's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff estate's punitive damages claim against Graybar.
• Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2022). The court denied defendant Hedman Resources Limited's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' jury verdict undisturbed.
• Robaey v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court denied Fel-Pro's motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on liability and recklessness, but vacated the $50 million and $25 million awards and ordered a new trial on damages unless the Robaeys agreed to reduced awards.
• Miller v. Hennessy Indus. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court denied Ammco's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld the liability findings for plaintiff Walter Miller, but vacated the $25 million pain and suffering award and ordered a new damages trial unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduced award.
• Assenzio v. Burnham (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied Burnham's and Cleaver-Brooks' motions to set aside the five mesothelioma verdicts for the plaintiffs, but found every damages award excessive and ordered new damages trials unless each plaintiff accepts a reduced award.
• Brown v. Bell & Gossett Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted Con Edison's motion to set aside the jury verdict against it, vacated the judgment for the plaintiffs (Brown's estate and his wife), and dismissed the complaint against Con Edison.
• McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Mario & DiBono's motion to set aside the verdict on causation, recklessness, apportionment, pain and suffering and consolidation, but ordered a new trial on loss of consortium damages unless plaintiffs accept a reduction of that award from $2 million to $340,000.
• Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assoc. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Tishman Liquidating Corp.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability and the economic damages, but vacated the $7 million and $12 million pain and suffering awards and ordered a new damages trial unless plaintiff Konstantin accepts reductions to $4.5 million and $3.5 million.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. Ronald Dummitt v. AW Chesterton (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability for plaintiff Ronald Dummitt. It vacated the $16 million past and $16 million future pain-and-suffering awards unless he accepts a reduction to $5.5 million and $2.5 million.
• IN Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation (New York Supreme Court, 2007). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion to vacate the jury's finding of reckless disregard and its motion to reduce the $25,000,000 verdict or order a new trial, so the plaintiffs won.
• IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, 2007). The court denied Chrysler's post-verdict motion to vacate the jury's finding of reckless disregard and to reduce the $25,000,000 verdict or order a new trial, so the plaintiffs, Alfred and Margaret D'Ulisse, kept the verdict.
• Mtr. OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, 1997). The court granted Rapid-American's motion for a new trial on damages unless each plaintiff agreed to a reduced pain-and-suffering award, upheld its rulings on the interrogatories, jury charge and fault apportionment, and set aside the recklessness finding for the three pre-1947 plaintiffs (White, Gantcher, Mangialomini).

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

89 N.Y.2d 955 (1997)

678 N.E.2d 467

655 N.Y.S.2d 855

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation.

Amelia Maltese, Individually and as Executrix of The Estate of Mario Maltese, Appellant,

v.

Westinghouse Electric Corp., Respondent.

Savino Stallone et al., Appellants,

v.

Westinghouse Electric Corp., Respondent. (And Another Action.)

Argued January 8, 1997.

Decided February 11, 1997.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, New York City (Christopher M. Placitella, Frank M. Ortiz and Barry R. Sugarman of counsel), for appellants.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City (David Boies of counsel), and Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., New York City (Robert A. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur; Judge TITONE taking no part.

*956MEMORANDUM.

956

The order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Mario Maltese and Savino Stallone were mechanics at Consolidated Edison Company's New York City powerhouses. Maltese worked at Con Edison's Hudson Avenue and Astoria powerhouses from 1951 through 1985. Stallone worked at the Hudson Avenue facility from 1946 until 1981. Both men contracted mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, as a result of their exposure to, among other things, the dust generated by maintenance and repair of asbestos-insulated turbines that defendant Westinghouse Corporation had sold to Con Edison.

Plaintiff-appellants (Maltese's estate, Stallone and his wife) brought suit in Supreme Court seeking damages for their injuries from multiple defendants, including Westinghouse. The case was consolidated with several others, the jury finding Westinghouse 20% liable for plaintiffs' injuries. The jury further found that Westinghouse demonstrated reckless disregard for the safety of Maltese and Stallone — making the corporation jointly liable for plaintiffs' noneconomic damages (see, CPLR 1602 [7]) — and that an award of punitive damages against Westinghouse was appropriate. On Westinghouse's posttrial motion, the trial court set aside those portions of the verdict finding reckless disregard for the workers' safety and assessing punitive damages. Judgment was thereafter entered, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

We agree with the trial court and Appellate Division as to the finding of reckless disregard, concluding that no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could possibly lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499).

In Saarinen v Kerr (84 N.Y.2d 494) we addressed the level of conduct required to establish "reckless disregard for the safety of others" under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e). We adopted a gross negligence standard, requiring that "`the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow' and has done so [*957] with conscious indifference to the outcome" (id., at 501, quoting Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 34, at 213 [5th ed]). Applying that standard here, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding of reckless disregard for the workers' safety. At most, the evidence reveals

Westinghouse's general awareness that exposure to high concentrations of asbestos over long periods of time could cause injury, but not that workers such as Maltese or Stallone were at risk at any time it could have warned them. Our conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider whether the same, or a higher, standard applies to punitive damages.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites