Asbestos Lawsuit History Isn't As Difficult As You Think
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone through bankruptcy, and victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have stated that their cases were the subject of suspect legal maneuvering.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard a number of asbestos-related cases. The court has dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions, which sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a well-known case. This was a significant event because it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against several manufacturers. This, in turn, led to an increase in claims from those suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other diseases. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds, which were utilized by companies that have gone bankrupt to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses and pain.
The asbestos-effected workers often bring the asbestos-containing material home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes the family members to suffer from the same symptoms as the exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.
While asbestos companies were aware asbestos was hazardous, they downplayed the risks and did not inform their employees or consumers. In reality, the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to hang warning signs in their buildings. The company's own research however, proved asbestos' carcinogenicity as early as the 1930s.
OSHA was founded in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. At this point doctors were working to inform the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were mostly successful. Lawsuits and news articles were launched to educate people however many asbestos-related companies were resistant to stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a significant issue for all Americans. Asbest is still found in commercial and residential buildings, even those built before the 1970s. This is why it's essential for those diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease to seek legal help. An experienced attorney can assist them in obtaining the compensation they deserve. They will be able to understand the complex laws that apply to this kind of case, and will make sure that they get the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers failed to warn consumers about the dangers of their insulation products. This important case triggered the floodgates of thousands of similar lawsuits, which continue to be filed.
The majority of the asbestos litigation involves claims by those who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers and plumbers are among those who have been affected. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma as well as lung cancer. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved ones.
Millions of dollars could be awarded as damages in a lawsuit brought against a manufacturer of asbestos products. These funds are used to cover the medical bills of the past and future loss of wages, pain and suffering. It can also pay for travel expenses, funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation forced many businesses into bankruptcy and created an asbestos trust fund to pay victims. The litigation has also put pressure on the state and federal courts. It has also sucked up countless hours of witnesses and attorneys.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and lengthy process that spanned several decades. The asbestos litigation was a long and costly process that spanned decades. However, Lake Charles asbestos lawsuit was successful in the exposing of asbestos executives who kept the truth about asbestos over many years. These executives were aware of the dangers and pressured workers to keep quiet about their health concerns.
After years of trial, appeal and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based upon the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is responsible for the harm caused to an end-user or consumer of its product if it is sold in a defective condition without adequate warning."
After the verdict was reached the defendants were ordered to pay damages to Tomplait's widow, Jacqueline Watson. Watson died before her final award was made by the court. Kazan Law offered to appeal the Appellate Court decision to the California Supreme Court.
Clarence Borel
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos-insulators such as Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory problems and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). But asbestos companies minimized the health risks of asbestos exposure. The truth would only be well-known in the 1960s as more research into medical science identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the dangers of their products could pose to their users. He claimed he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result working with their insulation over 33 years. The court ruled that defendants were required to warn.
The defendants argue that they did nothing wrong because they were aware of the dangers of asbestos long before 1968. They cite testimony from experts that asbestosis does not manifest its symptoms until fifteen twenty, twenty, or twenty-five years after the initial exposure to asbestos. If these experts are correct the defendants could be liable for injuries suffered by other workers who may have had asbestosis prior to Borel.
In addition, the defendants argue that they should not be held accountable for the development of Borel's mesothelioma since it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing insulation. They ignore the evidence collected by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' firms were aware of the asbestos risks for decades and suppressed the information.
The 1970s saw a surge in asbestos-related lawsuits, despite the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims crowded the courts, and thousands of workers became sick with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the lawsuit asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were created to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation continued it became evident that asbestos-related companies were accountable for the damages caused by their harmful products. The asbestos industry was forced to reforming their business practices. Today, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of numerous articles that have been published in journals of scholarly research. He has also given talks on these issues at several seminars and legal conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association and has served on various committees that deal with mesothelioma, asbestos and mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the country.
The firm charges 33 percent plus expenses for the compensation it receives from clients. It has won some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation history including a $22 million award for a man suffering from mesothelioma who worked at a New York City steel plant. The firm is also representing 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and it has filed claims for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma, among other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite its success, the firm faces increased criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and manipulating statistics. In addition, the company has been accused of pursuing fraudulent claims. In response to this the firm has launched a public defense fund and is seeking donations from corporations and individuals.
A second issue is that many defendants deny the scientific consensus that asbestos can cause mesothelioma even at low levels. They have used money paid by asbestos companies to pay "experts" to write papers in academic journals that back their claims.
In addition to arguing about the scientific consensus on asbestos, attorneys are looking at other aspects of the case. For instance they are fighting over the necessity of a constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim should have had actual knowledge of asbestos' dangers in order to receive compensation. They also debate the compensation ratios for various asbestos-related diseases.
Lawyers for plaintiffs claim there is a huge interest in compensating those who have suffered from mesothelioma or related diseases. They claim that the companies that created asbestos ought to have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.