Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, numerous asbestos-producing businesses and employers have declared bankruptcy. Victims are compensated by bankruptcy trust funds and through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported that their cases were the subject of suspect legal maneuvering.
Several asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the early 1900s from asbestos-related illnesses was a well-known case. Her death was significant because it triggered asbestos lawsuits against a variety of manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims from people who were diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other illnesses. These lawsuits led the way to trust funds being created that were used by bankrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and pain.
Temecula asbestos lawsuits exposed to asbestos often bring the material home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes family members to experience the same symptoms as their exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory problems as well as lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Although many asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous, they downplayed the risks and did not inform their employees or consumers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. Asbestos was identified as carcinogenic in the 1930s, according to research conducted by JohnsManville.
OSHA was founded in 1971, but it 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. News articles and lawsuits raised awareness, however many asbestos firms resisted calls for more stringent regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned from the United States, the mesothelioma issue remains a major concern for people across the nation. This is because asbestos continues to be found in homes and businesses even in those that were built prior to the 1970s. It is important that individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related condition get legal advice. An experienced lawyer can help them get the compensation they deserve. They will know the complicated laws that govern this type of case and ensure that they get the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in the year 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. The suit claimed that the companies did not warn consumers of the dangers posed by their insulation products. This important case triggered the floodgates of hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed today.
The majority of asbestos litigation involves claims from those who worked in the construction industry that employed asbestos-containing products. This includes electricians, plumbers and carpenters and drywall installers as well as roofers. A few of these workers are suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved family members.
A lawsuit against an asbestos-product manufacturer can result in millions of dollars in damages. These funds are used to cover the medical expenses of the past and in the future, lost wages and suffering and pain. This money can also be used to pay for travel costs funeral and burial costs, and loss companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced a lot of companies into bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds to pay victims. It has also put pressure on state and federal courts. It has also consumed countless hours of witnesses and attorneys.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took many decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos-related company executives who hid the truth about asbestos for decades. These executives were aware of the risks and pushed employees to not speak up about their health problems.
After years of appeals, trials and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based on the 1965 edition of Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is responsible for injury to the consumer or end-user of its product when it is sold in a defective condition without adequate warning."
After the verdict was reached the defendants were required to pay damages to Tomplait's widow, Jacqueline Watson. Watson passed away before her final decision could be given by the court. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court to overturn the Appellate Court's decision.
Clarence Borel
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos insulators like Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory issues and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). However, asbestos companies hid the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s, as more medical research identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the dangers their products could pose. He claimed he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants had a duty to warn.
The defendants argue that they did nothing wrong since they knew about asbestos' dangers long before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis can not manifest until 15, 20 or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If the experts are correct, then the defendants could have been held responsible for the injuries of others who may have been affected by asbestosis earlier than Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they shouldn't be held accountable for the development of Borel's mesothelioma since it was his choice to working with asbestos-containing insulation. They ignore the evidence gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew of the asbestos risks for decades and hid the information.
The 1970s saw an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits, in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and a multitude of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the litigation, asbestos-related businesses went bankrupt. Trust funds were established to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation grew, it became evident that asbestos companies were responsible for the damage caused by toxic substances. The asbestos industry was forced into reforming their business practices. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been resolved for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of several articles that have been published in journals of scholarly research. He has also given talks on these topics at a number of legal seminars and conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees dealing with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg has more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm charges a 33 percent fee plus costs for compensations it obtains for its clients. It has obtained some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22,000,000 settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at the New York City Steel Plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed claims for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite its success, the firm has been subject to criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused by critics of propagating conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and inflating the statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response, the firm launched a public defence fund and is currently seeking donations from private individuals as well as corporations.
Another issue is that many defendants are against the consensus of science that asbestos causes mesothelioma, even at very low levels. They have used money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who published papers in academic journals to back their arguments.
In addition to fighting over the scientific consensus on asbestos, lawyers are also looking at other aspects of the case. They argue, for instance, about the constructive notification required to submit an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be qualified for compensation, the victim must actually have been aware of the dangers of asbestos. They also dispute the compensation ratios for different asbestos-related illnesses.
The attorneys representing plaintiffs argue there is a huge public interest in awarding compensation to those who suffer from mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the dangers and they should be held accountable.