Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, numerous asbestos-producing companies and employers have declared bankruptcy. Victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal maneuvering in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard a number of asbestos-related cases. The court has heard cases involving class action settlements that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related ailments, was a prominent case. It was a significant incident because it triggered asbestos lawsuits being filed against a variety of manufacturers. This, in turn, led to an increase in claims filed by those diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other ailments. These lawsuits led to creation trust funds that were used by bankrupt companies to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as pain.
The asbestos-effected workers often bring the asbestos-containing material home to their families. In this case, the family members inhale the fibers and experience the same symptoms similar to those who were exposed. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems mesothelioma, lung cancer, and lung cancer.
While asbestos companies were aware asbestos was hazardous, they downplayed the risks and refused to inform their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. The company's own research revealed asbestos' carcinogenicity as early as the 1930s.
OSHA was founded in 1971. However, it was only able to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. At this point doctors and health experts were already working to educate people to asbestos' dangers. These efforts were mostly successful. The media and lawsuits helped raise awareness, however asbestos firms were resistant to 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. It's because asbestos continues to be present in businesses and homes even in those that were built prior to the 1970s. It is important that individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease get legal advice. An experienced lawyer will assist them in getting the compensation they deserve. They will be able to comprehend the complex laws which apply to this type case and make sure they get the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in the year 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. Worcester asbestos lawsuits claimed that the manufacturers didn't warn consumers about the dangers posed by their insulation products. This landmark case opened the floodgates for tens of thousands of similar lawsuits that continue to be filed today.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought on behalf of people who worked in the construction industry and employed asbestos-containing materials. These people include plumbers, electricians, carpenters and drywall installers as well as roofers. Some of these workers are currently suffering from mesothelioma, cancer of the lung and other asbestos-related ailments. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved ones.
Millions of dollars could be awarded in damages in a lawsuit against a manufacturer of asbestos products. This money is used to cover past and future medical expenses, lost wages and suffering and pain. It can also pay for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced many businesses into bankruptcy and created asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. The litigation has also put a strain on the state and federal courts. Additionally, it has consumed countless hours by lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and long-running process that lasted many decades. However, it was successful in exposing asbestos company executives who concealed the truth about asbestos for decades. These executives were aware of the risks and pressured workers not to speak out about their health problems.
After many 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 liable for injury to the consumer or end-user of its product when it is sold in a defected condition, without adequate warning."
After the verdict was reached, the defendants were ordered to compensate the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. However, Ms. Watson died before the court could make her final verdict. Kazan Law offered to appeal the Appellate Court decision to the California Supreme Court.
Clarence Borel
In the late 1950s, asbestos insulators like Borel began to complain about breathing problems and thickening of their fingertip tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed worker's compensation claims. The asbestos industry, however, downplayed asbestos as a health risk. The truth would only be well-known in the 1960s as more research into medical science linked asbestos to respiratory ailments like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the risks associated with their products could pose. He claimed that he contracted mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants were liable for warning.
The defendants argue that they did nothing wrong because they were aware of asbestos' dangers long before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis may not develop until 15 to 20 or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If the experts are right then the defendants could have been held accountable for the injuries suffered by others who may have suffered from asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants also claim that they shouldn't be held accountable for the mesothelioma of Borel since it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing materials. But they do not consider the evidence that was gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew about asbestos's dangers for decades and hid the risk information.
Although the Claude Tomplait case was the first asbestos class action lawsuit, the 1970s saw an explosion of asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos-related claims flooded the courts and a large number of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. As a result of the litigation, a number of asbestos-related companies went bankrupt and created trust funds to compensate the victims of asbestos-related diseases. As the litigation grew it became evident that asbestos-related companies were responsible for the damage caused by their toxic products. 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 has written a number of articles that have been published in journals of scholarly research. He has also spoken on these topics at a number of seminars and legal conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association, and has served on various committees that deal with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm charges 33 percent plus costs for compensation it obtains for clients. It has won some of the biggest 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 is also representing 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed claims for a multitude of people 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 of spreading conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system and skewing the statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response, the company has launched a public defence fund and is currently seeking donations from private corporations as well as individuals.
Another issue is that many defendants do not believe that asbestos is a cause of mesothelioma even at low levels. They have used money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who have published papers in journals of academic research to back their arguments.
Attorneys are not only arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but are also focusing on the other aspects of the cases. For instance they are arguing over the necessity of a constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that the victim must have actually been aware of asbestos's dangers to be eligible for compensation. They also dispute the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related illnesses.
The attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial public interest in awarding damages to compensate people who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that the companies that produced asbestos should have been aware about the risks and must be held accountable.