Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing businesses and employers have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and 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 dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions, which sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a well-known case. It was a significant case because it triggered 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. These lawsuits led the way to creation trust funds that were used by companies that went bankrupt to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases. These funds have also allowed asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for their medical expenses and pain and suffering.
In addition to the many deaths associated with asbestos exposure, people who are exposed to the substance often bring it home to their families. If this happens, family members breathe in the asbestos which causes them to experience the same symptoms as the exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues as well as lung cancer and mesothelioma.
While asbestos companies were aware asbestos was a risk, they downplayed the risks and refused to inform their employees or consumers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. Asbestos was found to be carcinogenic in the 1930s according to research conducted by JohnsManville.
OSHA was established in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. At this point doctors were attempting to warn the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. The efforts were generally successful. The news media and lawsuits began to increase awareness however, many asbestos companies resisted the call for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a major issue for individuals throughout the country. Asbest is still present in commercial and residential buildings even in buildings built prior to the 1970s. It is essential that those diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related condition, seek legal advice. An experienced attorney can assist them in getting the compensation they deserve. They will be able to understand the complicated laws that apply to this kind of case and make sure they receive the most favorable outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He then filed his first lawsuit against asbestos product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This important case set the stage for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the near future.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought by people who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These people include electricians, plumbers, carpenters, plumbers, drywall installers, and roofers. Some of these workers suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved family members.
A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer can result in millions dollars in damages. These funds are used to cover past and future medical costs, lost wages and pain and suffering. Chico asbestos lawyer pays for funeral and burial costs, as well as loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced many companies into bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds to pay victims. It has also put an immense burden on federal and state courts. It has also consumed countless hours of lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took many decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned decades. However it was successful in the exposing of asbestos executives who kept the truth about asbestos over many years. They were aware of the risks and pressured workers to hide their health issues.
After several years of trial and appeal and appeal, the court ruled 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 injuries to consumers or users of his product when the product is supplied in a defective condition unaccompanied by adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife, was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. However, Ms. Watson died before the court could issue her final award. Kazan Law offered to appeal the Appellate Court decision to the California Supreme Court.
Clarence Borel
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos-insulators such as Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory ailments and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos as a health risk. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s, when more research in medicine identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for not warning about the dangers of their products. He claimed that he had mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation over a period of 33 years. The court ruled that defendants had a duty to warn.
The defendants claim that they didn't commit any crime because they knew about asbestos's dangers well 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 they could have been liable for the injuries suffered by other workers who may have had asbestosis prior to Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they shouldn't be held accountable for the development of Borel's mesothelioma due to his choice to to work with asbestos-containing insulation. Kazan Law gathered evidence that proved that defendants' companies were aware of asbestos risks and suppressed the information for many years.
Although the Claude Tomplait case was the first asbestos class action lawsuit in the 1970s, the decade of 1970 saw an explosion of asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos claims filled the courts, and thousands of workers developed asbestos-related illnesses. As a result of the litigation, many asbestos-related businesses went under and established trust funds to compensate the victims of asbestos-related diseases. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that asbestos-related companies were responsible for the damages caused by their harmful products. Therefore, the asbestos industry was forced to change the way they conducted business. Today, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also presented on these subjects at various seminars and legal conferences. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has been a member of various committees that deal with mesothelioma, asbestos and mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg has more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm charges a 33 percent fee plus expenses on compensations it obtains for its clients. It has secured some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at an New York City Steel Plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed claims for a multitude of people suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this, 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. The firm has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response to this the company has announced an open defense fund and is seeking donations from individuals and corporations.
A second issue is that many defendants deny the scientific consensus that asbestos is a cause of mesothelioma even at low levels. They have resorted to money paid by asbestos companies to hire "experts" who published papers in journals of academics to support their claims.
In addition to fighting over the scientific consensus on asbestos, attorneys are focusing on other aspects of the case. For example, they are arguing about the requirement for constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim had a real understanding of asbestos's dangers to be eligible for compensation. They also debate the compensation ratios for various asbestos-related diseases.
Lawyers for plaintiffs claim there is a huge interest in compensating those who have suffered mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the dangers, and must be held responsible.