The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweet, D.J.
The defendant Atlas Turner, Inc. ("Atlas Turner") has moved
pursuant to Rules 50 and 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., to set aside the
verdict rendered against it or for a new trial. Plaintiff Linda
Hamilton, individually and as executrix of the estate of George
Hamilton ("Hamilton") seeks certain discovery and the entry of
judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Atlas
Turner is denied, and the motions of Hamilton are granted.
This is the epilogue to a hard-fought litigation brought by
Hamilton to recover damages against, among other defendants,
Atlas Turner for his mesothelioma resulting from exposure to the
asbestos products of defendants, including Atlas Turner. After a
fourteen-day trial, the jury awarded damages of over $4 million
for pain and suffering and for loss of parental care and
guidance, and allocated fault as between the defendants. Judgment
in the amount of $4,288,427.47 was entered on November 6, 1998.
Post trial the motion for dismissal by Atlas Turner was granted
for lack of jurisdiction. Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc.,
31 F. Supp.2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). On appeal by Hamilton, the Court of
Appeals reversed that ruling, holding that Atlas Turner had
waived its jurisdictional defense. Hamilton v. Atlas Turner,
Inc., 197 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1999).
Atlas Turner has renewed its Rule 50 and 59 motions and
Hamilton seeks judgment and discovery in and of enforcement of
any judgment to be rendered. The motions were deemed fully
submitted on March 22, 2000.
I. The Verdict Will Not Be Set Aside
A. Standard Under Rule 50
The standards to be applied to motions under Rule 50 were set
forth in the opinions
denying similar motions of other defendants John Crane, Inc.,
and Raymark Industries, Inc., and are applicable here. See Caruolo
v. AC and S, Inc., 1999 WL 147740, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 1999);
In re Asbestos Litigation (Greff, et al), 986 F. Supp. 761,
765 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Simply stated, the evidence offered by Hamilton
was sufficient to support the verdict against Atlas Turner.
B. The Evidence Of Exposure Was Sufficient
The evidence of exposure to an asbestos product manufactured by
Atlas Turner was sufficient. In his depositions, Hamilton
specifically named Atlas Turner as one of the manufacturers of
the asbestos products to which he was exposed. (Tr. 371-377).
Moreover, his shipmate, Cliff Mann, testified that he worked with
Hamilton aboard the U.S.S. John W. Weeks and that they used bags
of asbestos with the name "Atlas" on them. (Tr. 1096-1010,
1023-1030). Frank Ronsini ("Ronsini") identified Atlas Turner as the
manufacturer of the insulating cement used aboard the U.S.S. John
W. Weeks. (Tr. 355-359). The evidence at trial established that
Atlas Turner manufactured and sold three out of these four types
of asbestos products — the pipe covering, block and cement,
and its answers to interrogatories described its asbestos pipe
covering block and cement products as "High Temperature
Insulation" used for "Pipe and Boiler Insulation."
II. A New Trial Is Not ...