Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing companies and employers have gone bankrupt. Victims are compensated via trust funds for bankruptcy as well as through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal tactics in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard numerous asbestos-related cases. The court has handled cases involving class action settlements that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman named Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related illnesses and passed away. This was a significant event because it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against various manufacturers. This, in turn, led to an increase in claims filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other illnesses. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds which were used by bankrupt manufacturers to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds have also allowed asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering.
In addition to the many deaths associated with asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to the substance often bring it home to their families. When this happens, the family members breathe in the asbestos and experience the same symptoms similar to those who were exposed. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues as well as lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Although many asbestos companies were aware asbestos was a risk however, they minimized the risks and refused to warn their employees or consumers. In reality the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to hang warning signs in their offices. The company's own studies, however, proved asbestos' carcinogenicity in the 1930s.
OSHA was established in 1971. However, it was only able to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. By the time it was formed health professionals and doctors were already trying to alert the public to asbestos' dangers. These efforts were largely successful. News articles and lawsuits started to raise awareness 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 major issue for all Americans. This is because asbestos continues to be found in both 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 advice. A knowledgeable attorney will assist them in getting the compensation they deserve. They will be able to comprehend the complicated laws that apply to this type case and make sure they receive the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, brought the first lawsuit against asbestos producers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers had failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This landmark case paved the way for tens and thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the near future.
The majority of asbestos litigation involves claims from people who worked in construction industries that used asbestos-containing products. Plumbers, electricians and carpenters are among those who have been affected. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Some of them are seeking compensation in the event that loved ones have passed away.
Millions of dollars may be awarded as damages in a suit against the maker of asbestos products. The money is used to cover past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and suffering and pain. The money can also be used to pay for travel expenses funeral and burial expenses, and loss companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced many companies into bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds 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 lengthy and costly process that stretched over decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos-related company executives who concealed the truth about asbestos for decades. These executives knew of the dangers and pressured employees to conceal their health issues.
After years of appeals, trials and court rulings in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based upon the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is responsible for injury to consumers or users of its product when it is sold in a defected condition without adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife, was awarded damages by the court following the verdict. However Ms. Watson died before the court could make her final award. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court's decision.
Clarence Borel
In the late 1950s, asbestos insulators like Borel were starting to complain of breathing problems and thickening of their fingertip tissue, which was referred to as "finger clubbing." They filed worker's compensation claims. The asbestos industry, however, brushed aside asbestos as a health risk. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s as more research into medical science linked asbestos to respiratory ailments such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the risks associated with their products could pose. He claimed that he contracted mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court found that the defendants had a duty of warning.
The defendants argue that they did not breach their duty to warn because they knew or should be aware about the dangers posed by asbestos before the year 1968. They cite expert testimony that asbestosis does not manifest its symptoms until fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five years after first exposure to asbestos. If these experts are correct then the defendants could have been held accountable for the injuries suffered by other workers who might have been affected by asbestosis earlier than Borel.
The defendants argue that they aren't responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma because it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing materials. They ignore the evidence collected by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' firms were aware of asbestos' dangers for a long time and suppressed the risk information.
The 1970s saw a surge in asbestos-related litigation, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits were aplenty in the courts and thousands of asbestos-related illnesses were contracted by workers. Thornton asbestos attorney to the litigation, many asbestos-related companies went bankrupt and established trust funds to compensate victims of their asbestos-related ailments. As the litigation grew, it became evident that asbestos-related companies were accountable to the extent of the harm caused by toxic substances. The asbestos industry was forced into reforming their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are resolved today for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of several articles that were published in journals of academic research. He has also given talks on these topics at a variety of seminars and legal conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees that deal with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, represents more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the United States.
The firm is charged a fee of 33 percent plus costs on the compensations it receives for its clients. It has won some of the largest verdicts in the history of asbestos litigation, including the $22 million verdict for a mesothelioma patient who worked at an New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed claims on behalf of a multitude of mesothelioma patients or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this however, the firm is facing increased criticism over 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 launched a public defence fund and is soliciting donations from individuals as well as companies.
Another issue is that a lot of defendants are attempting to undermine the scientific consensus worldwide that asbestos even at low levels can cause mesothelioma. They have used the funds provided by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" to write papers in journals of academic research that support their arguments.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, attorneys are focused on other aspects of the cases. They argue, for instance regarding the constructive notice required to file an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be eligible for compensation the victim must have been aware of asbestos' dangers. They also dispute the compensation ratios for various asbestos-related illnesses.
Lawyers for plaintiffs argue that there is a significant interest in compensating those who have been affected by mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the companies that created asbestos ought to have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.