They say hindsight's 20/20, but can it be blind.
It's easy to criticize previous generations for not having a finer understanding about certain things, but is it fair to expect them to have known what no one knew at the time? And do we want future generations to hold us to the same impossible standard?
Robert Modley seems to have particularly acute hindsight. He can see that asbestos exposure during a three-year period in the 1950s caused the death decades later of his relative, Franklin Modley.
He also can see that the owners of a now-defunct company should have cautioned his relative and others about the then-unknown dangers of asbestos. And he can see that a second company should be blamed for their supposed error, because the first company is no longer around.
The only problem for Robert is that the second company doesn't share his brand of hindsight. Viad Corporation is fighting back against the lawsuit filed in Kanawha Circuit Court by Robert Modley, who alleges that Franklin's death half a century later resulted from exposure to asbestos as a U.S. Navy boiler tender and technician from 1954-57.
As reported last week in The Record, Viad denies Robert's claim that it is a successor in interest to the Griscom-Russell Company, which manufactured asbestos-insulated evaporators and fuel oil heaters for the ship Franklin worked on, and other Navy vessels in the 1950s. Because it is not a successor in interest, Viad cannot be held responsible for any harm allegedly caused by the equipment manufactured by Griscom-Russell.
But Viad goes further, asserting that Griscom-Russell, were it still in existence, could not be held liable since it followed strictly enforced Navy specifications–an assertion affirmed in an affidavit by a U.S. Navy Rear Admiral. Viad seeks dismissal of the complaint and recovery of the costs of defending itself.
Losing a loved one is always painful, but blaming the wrong party for his death is no way to honor the memory of a veteran.