Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s many asbestos-producing companies and employers have gone bankrupt and the victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal tactics in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard several asbestos-related cases. The court has handled cases involving settlements of class actions seeking to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman named Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related illnesses and passed away. It was a significant case as it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against several manufacturers. This in turn sparked an increase of claims from patients diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other ailments. These lawsuits led to creation trust funds that were used by companies that went bankrupt to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds have also allowed asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses, suffering.
People who have been exposed to asbestos frequently bring the material home to their families. Inhaling asbestos fibers can cause family members to experience the same symptoms as the exposed worker. These symptoms include chronic respiratory issues mesothelioma, lung cancer and lung cancer.
Many asbestos companies knew asbestos was dangerous but they minimized the risks, and refused to inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies to enter their buildings to place warning signs. The company's own research however, proved asbestos' carcinogenicity from the 1930s onwards.
OSHA was founded in 1971, but it began to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. By the time it was formed doctors and health experts were already working to educate the public to asbestos's dangers. These efforts were generally successful. The news media and lawsuits began to educate people however many asbestos-related firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned from the United States, the mesothelioma problem continues to be a major concern for people across the nation. Asbest remains in businesses and homes even before the 1970s. It is important that individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related disease, seek legal advice. An experienced attorney will assist them in getting the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will understand the complex laws that govern this type of case and will make sure that they get the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He filed the first lawsuit against asbestos-related manufacturers of products. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This crucial case opened the floodgates for thousands of similar lawsuits that continue to be filed.
The majority of the asbestos litigation involves claims by people who worked in construction industries that used asbestos-containing products. These include electricians, plumbers, carpenters, plumbers as well as drywall installers and roofers. Some of these workers suffer from mesothelioma as well as lung cancer. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved ones.
A lawsuit against a manufacturer of asbestos-based products could result in millions of dollars in damages. These funds can be used to pay for past and future medical costs loss of wages, suffering and pain. It can also be used to pay for travel costs funeral and burial expenses, and loss companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of businesses into bankruptcy and created an asbestos trust fund to compensate victims. The litigation has also put pressure on the state and federal courts. In addition it has sucked up countless hours by lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and lengthy process that spanned several decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and expensive process that spanned decades. However it was successful in uncovering asbestos executives who had hid the truth about asbestos for many years. They were aware of the risks, and they pressured workers to not talk about their health issues.
After many years of appeal and trial, the court was in favor of Tomplait. The court's ruling was based on an edition of 1965 of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injury to consumers or users of his product if the product is sold in a defective state without adequate warning."
Following the decision the defendants were ordered to pay the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. Watson passed away before her final award could be determined by the court. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court's decision.
Clarence Borel
In the latter half of 1950, asbestos insulators like Borel began to complain about breathing problems and the thickening of their fingers tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed claims for workers' compensation. However, asbestos companies hid the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. In the 1960s, more research in medicine began to link asbestos exposure to respiratory ailments like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for not warning of the dangers of their products. He claimed he had developed asbestosis and mesothelioma as a result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled the defendants owed a duty of warning.
The defendants claim that they did not infringe their duty to inform because they were aware or ought to be aware of the dangers associated with asbestos long before 1968. Expert testimony suggests that asbestosis can not appear until 15 to 20 years or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right then the defendants could have been held accountable for the injuries of other workers who may be suffering from asbestosis before Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they shouldn't be held accountable for the development of Borel's mesothelioma since it was his decision to continue to work with asbestos-containing insulation. They ignore the evidence that was gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew about asbestos's dangers for a long time and suppressed this information.
The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related litigation, in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits were aplenty in the courts and a multitude of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the litigation asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were created to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation continued it became evident that the asbestos companies were accountable for the damages caused by their toxic products. The asbestos industry was forced to reforming their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are asbestos lawsuit history settled today for millions dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also presented on these topics at a variety of seminars and legal conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association, and has served on various committees that deal with mesothelioma and asbestos. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.
The firm charges a fee of 33 percent plus costs for the settlements it receives from its clients. It has secured some of the biggest verdicts in the history of asbestos litigation including the $22 million verdict for a mesothelioma patient who worked at the New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed lawsuits on behalf of tens of thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this, the company is now confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system and skewing statistics. In addition, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response the firm has launched an open defense fund and is looking for donations from both corporations and individuals.
Another issue is the fact that a number of defendants are challenging the scientific consensus worldwide that asbestos even at low levels can cause mesothelioma. They have used funds paid by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" to publish articles in academic journals that support their claims.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, lawyers are also looking at other aspects of the case. They are arguing, for example regarding the constructive notice required to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim must have had actual knowledge of asbestos's dangers in order to receive compensation. They also argue over the proportion of compensation among different types of asbestos-related illnesses.
Lawyers for plaintiffs argue that there is a significant interest in compensating those who have suffered from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that the companies that made asbestos should have known about the dangers and should be held accountable.