State high court rules against company in fatal cancer trial

The state Supreme Court reinstated an Alameda County jury’s verdict against a pipe supply company Thursday in a suit by a construction worker who was fatally stricken with cancer after cutting pipes that contained asbestos.

Jurors awarded $1.6 million in 2017 to Frank C. Hart, who installed pipes in sewer lines in 197677 and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma. A state appeals court overturned the verdict in 2018, saying there was no legal evidence that Keenan Properties, the defendant in the suit, supplied the pipe. The state’s high court unanimously reversed that ruling Thursday and returned the case to the county court to consider Keenan’s challenges to the amount of damages.

Hart died of cancer late last year. He lived in Southern California but filed suit in Oakland, where one company in the case was located. His widow, Cynthia Hart, remains a plaintiff. They settled their claims against all the companies except Keenan, which denied responsibility and went to trial.

Hart worked for Christeve Corp. installing thousands of feet of asbestoscement pipe in sewer lines in McKinleyville (Humboldt County). To identify the supplier, he relied on testimony by a foreman, John Glamuzina, who said he recalled seeing Keenan’s name and logo, a circled letter K, on invoices he signed when receiving the pipes.

A Keenan official said he had no information that the company had sold pipes in McKinleyille at the time, and invoices from that period had long since been destroyed. The jury found that Keenan had been one of the companies that harmed Hart and awarded damages for financial losses and pain and suffering.

In reversing the verdict, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Glamuzina’s identification of Keenan was hearsay — a secondhand account of events occurring outside the courtroom — and should not have been presented to the jury. But the state Supreme Court said Thursday that the foreman was merely describing what he saw and recognized and that his testimony was proper.

For example, Justice Carol Corrigan said in the 70 ruling, if Glamuzina had testified that he saw a document labeled, “Best Pipes on Earth,” the document could not be used as evidence of the pipes’ quality — which would be hearsay — but could be used to identify the company that employed the slogan.

The foreman’s job duties included checking invoices, and his testimony was “relevant to prove the disputed link between Keenan and the pipes, regardless of the content,” Corrigan said.

The ruling means witnesses can “testify as to names or logos they they observe on harmful products,” said Denyse Clancy, a lawyer for the family. She said Hart “lives on through his wife Cindy and the legacy that this opinion will leave for others who have been hurt by defective products.”

A lawyer for the company declined to comment.

The case is Hart vs. Keenan Properties, S253295.