A Louisiana court recently overturned a decision to grant a new trial in a high-stakes mesothelioma case involving a major consumer goods company. The complaint, filed by the Colgate-Palmolive Company on September 19, 2024, in the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit of Louisiana, sought to reverse an earlier ruling that favored the plaintiffs, Wayne and Henry Chenet.
The case revolves around Vita Chenet, who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in October 2018. She alleged that her illness was caused by asbestos contamination in Colgate's talcum powder product, Cashmere Bouquet. After her death in February 2019 at age 83, her sons continued the litigation. They argued that Colgate's product contained asbestos and was responsible for their mother's illness. Colgate denied these claims and suggested alternative sources of asbestos exposure from Ms. Chenet’s father’s employment at Higgins Shipyard during World War II.
In March 2024, after a three-week jury trial, the jury found no evidence that Cashmere Bouquet was contaminated with asbestos and ruled in favor of Colgate. However, the Chenets filed a Motion for New Trial on April 24, 2024, claiming that improper testimony from Colgate’s expert pathologist Dr. Richard Attanoos had prejudiced the jury. Dr. Attanoos testified about Ms. Chenet’s father's lung cancer being related to asbestos exposure at Higgins Shipyard—a statement later struck from the record as it was unsolicited and not previously disclosed.
The trial court agreed with the Chenets and granted their motion on June 18, 2024, citing that Dr. Attanoos' testimony could have confused the jury regarding causation—whether Ms. Chenet's mesothelioma was due to exposure from Cashmere Bouquet or her father's work environment.
Colgate challenged this decision on four grounds: failure to apply harmless error standards; lack of finding a miscarriage of justice; failure of the plaintiffs to move contemporaneously for a mistrial; and failure to make other contemporaneous objections regarding prejudicial testimony and timing of curative instructions.
Upon review, the appellate court found merit in Colgate's arguments about irrelevant testimony and lack of miscarriage of justice findings. The court noted that since Dr. Attanoos' objectionable testimony pertained only to causation (which was not decided by the jury), it did not affect their verdict on whether Cashmere Bouquet contained asbestos. Furthermore, without a finding of miscarriage of justice—a prerequisite for granting a new trial under discretionary grounds—the trial court's decision was deemed an abuse of discretion.
Consequently, Judges Roland L. Belsome, Daniel L. Dysart, Rosemary Ledet, Paula A. Brown, and Dale N. Atkins reversed the lower court’s judgment granting a new trial.
Attorneys involved include James M. Garner representing Colgate-Palmolive Company from Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert LLC; Lance C Unglesby and Adrian M Simm Jr from Unglesby & Crompton LLC; Jamie F Gontarek also representing respondents along with Lindsey A Cheek from The Cheek Law Firm LLC.