The 10 Scariest Things About Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing companies and employers have declared bankruptcy. Victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have stated that their cases were the subject of suspicious legal maneuvering.
Many asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has heard cases involving settlements of class actions that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman called Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related illnesses and passed away. Her case was significant because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other diseases. These lawsuits led the way to trust funds created by the government that were used by banksrupt companies to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as suffering.
In addition to the many deaths associated with asbestos exposure, people who are exposed to asbestos often bring it home to their families. When this happens, the family members breathe in the asbestos and experience the same symptoms as the exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was a risk, but they hid the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies into their premises to put up warning signs. Asbestos was discovered to be carcinogenic in the 1930s, according to research conducted by Johns Manville.
OSHA was established in 1971, but it began to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. In the 1970s doctors were working to warn the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were generally successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, but asbestos companies resisted calls for stricter regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos attorney has been banned from the United States, the mesothelioma issue is still an issue for many across the nation. This is because asbestos continues to be present in businesses and homes even in those that were built prior to the 1970s. This is why it's essential for those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease to seek legal assistance. An experienced attorney can help them get the justice they deserve. They will be able understand the complicated laws that apply to this particular case and ensure that they receive the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis and filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers of products. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers had failed warn consumers about the dangers of their insulation products. This important case set the stage for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the future.
The majority of asbestos lawsuits are brought on behalf of people who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These include electricians, plumbers and carpenters 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 family members.
A lawsuit against a manufacturer of asbestos-based products could result in millions of dollars in damages. The money is used to pay for past and future medical expenses, lost wages and suffering and pain. It also pays for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of companies into bankruptcy, and also created an asbestos attorney trust fund to compensate victims. It has also put pressure on federal and state courts. It has also consumed countless hours of lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a long and costly process that spanned many years. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned decades. However it was successful in exposing asbestos executives who hid the truth about asbestos over many years. They were aware of the dangers and pressured workers to hide their health issues.
After years of trial and appeal, the court was in favor of Tomplait. The court's ruling was in reference to the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injuries to consumers or users of his product if the product is sold in a defective state unaccompanied by adequate warning."
After the verdict was made the defendants were required to compensate the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. Watson passed away 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 like Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory issues and the thickening of fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos as a health risk. The truth would only become well-known in the 1960s, when more research in medicine connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for failing to warn about the dangers of their products. He claimed that he had mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled that defendants had a duty to warn.
The defendants claim that they did not breach their duty to warn because they knew or should be aware of the dangers associated with asbestos long before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis can not develop until 15 to 20, or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. If these experts are right they could be liable for injuries sustained by other workers who might have been affected by asbestos before Borel.
The defendants also argue that they aren't accountable for the mesothelioma of Borel, as it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing substances. But they do not consider the evidence gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew of asbestos' dangers for decades and hid this information.
The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related lawsuits, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. asbestos lawsuit lawsuits flooded the courts and thousands of asbestos-related illnesses were contracted by workers. In the wake of the litigation, many asbestos-related companies filed for bankruptcy and established trust funds to pay for victims of asbestos-related diseases. As the litigation progressed it became clear that asbestos companies were responsible for the damage caused by toxic substances. 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 several articles that were published in journals of scholarly research. He has also addressed these issues at several seminars and legal conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees that deal with asbestos and mesothelioma. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the nation.
The firm charges a 33 percent fee plus costs on compensations it obtains for its clients. It has won some the largest settlements in asbestos litigation history including the $22 million verdict for a mesothelioma patient who worked at a New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed lawsuits on behalf of tens of thousands of mesothelioma patients or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this achievement however, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and manipulating statistics. In addition, the firm has been accused of pursuing fraudulent claims. In response, the company launched a public defence fund and is soliciting donations from individuals as well as corporations.
Another issue is that many defendants are against the consensus of science that asbestos can cause mesothelioma, even at very low levels. They have used the money provided by asbestos companies to hire "experts" who published papers in academic journals to support their claims.
Attorneys aren't only arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but are also looking at other aspects of the cases. For instance, they are arguing about the necessity of a constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim should have had a real understanding of asbestos's dangers in order to be eligible for compensation. They also argue over the compensation ratios for different types of asbestos lawsuit-related illnesses.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that there is a significant public interest in granting compensatory damages for people who have suffered from mesothelioma and related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the dangers, and must be held responsible.