All Details You Need To Know About The Scott Turf Builder Lawsuit Case
All Details You Need To Know About The Scott Turf Builder Lawsuit Case: Mesothelioma lawsuit against Scotts Turf Builder lawn fertilizer was filed in 2012.
Facts of the case:
- The case was filed by Lorenz Brandecker. He was a cabinet maker by profession. As he took good care of his yard, he used to apply fertilizer twice a year to his yard, every year from 1967 to 1980. The fertilizer he used was from Scotts Turf Builder.
- In March of 2012, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He filed his lawsuit against the company in July and passed away in October. (Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops from the mesothelium; the thin layer that covers many internal organs). The lawsuit is currently being pursued by his wife.
- The basis of the lawsuit is the fact that the filler used in fertilizer produced by Scott Turf Builder was vermiculite. It was purchased from a mine which allegedly contained asbestos. Undoubtedly then the fertilizer as well contained asbestos. Lorenz claimed that he had developed Mesothelioma due to the asbestos in fertilizer.
- At the time of the case, evidence could not be presented as Scotts was unable to present to the court any product that was produced before 1980. This was acceptable and understandable as the lawsuit was filed in 2012, about 32 years later.
The Brandeckers were formulating their case on the basis of contamination of another unrelated product. It was due to this reason that the case was summarily dismissed by the court in 2015. - Mrs Brandeckers’ luck took a turn for the better, however, when it was discovered that Scott Turf Builder did in fact have in their possession a few samples of fertilizer before 1980. These samples had been disclosed in another unrelated mesothelioma lawsuit. As the company had an ethical, moral as well as legal duty to disclose these samples in the said lawsuit as well, the case was reopened.
The mesothelioma lawsuit against Scott Turf Builder lawn fertilizer was dismissed on the basis of insufficient evidence, which has since changed. The samples discovered have yet to be tested for asbestos contamination.
For More Information & Videos Subscribe To Our YouTube Channel