Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone bankrupt, and victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have claimed that their cases were the subject of suspicious legal maneuvering.
A number of asbestos-related cases have been heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions, which sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related diseases, was a prominent case. Her death was significant due to the fact that it sparked asbestos lawsuits against various manufacturers and helped spark an increase in claims from those diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other illnesses. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds which have been used by banksrupt companies to pay compensation for asbestos-related sufferers. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their families to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and suffering.
Workers exposed to asbestos often bring the asbestos-containing material home to their families. In this case, the family members breathe in the asbestos and suffer from the same symptoms as the asbestos-exposed worker. These symptoms include chronic respiratory issues, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies knew that asbestos was dangerous but they minimized the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or customers. 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.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was founded in 1971, however, it didn't begin to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. By the time it was formed doctors and health experts were already trying to warn people to asbestos's dangers. The efforts were mostly successful. The news media and lawsuits began to raise awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma problem continues to be a major issue for people across the nation. Asbest remains in homes and business even before the 1970s. This is why it's important for those diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related illness to seek legal assistance. An experienced lawyer can help them get the compensation they deserve. They will be able to comprehend the complex laws which apply to this kind of case and make sure they get the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He filed the first lawsuit against asbestos product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This important case opened the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits, which continue to be filed.
The majority of asbestos lawsuits are brought on behalf of people who have worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These include electricians, plumbers and carpenters as well as drywall installers and roofers. A few of these workers are currently suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer and other asbestos-related ailments. Some of these workers are seeking compensation in the case that their loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars may be awarded in damages in a lawsuit brought against a manufacturer of asbestos products. This money is used to pay for future and past medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. It can also be used to pay for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced a lot of companies into bankruptcy, and also created asbestos trust funds to pay victims. The litigation has also put a strain on the state and federal courts. Additionally it has sucked up countless man-hours by attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a long and expensive process that spanned many years. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and expensive process that spanned years. However, it was successful in exposing asbestos executives who hid the truth about asbestos over many years. They were aware of the risks, and they pressured workers to not talk about their health issues.
After several years of appeal and trial and appeal, the court finally decided in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based on the 1965 edition of Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for any injury suffered by 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 required to compensate the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. 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
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos-insulators like Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory ailments and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). However, asbestos companies minimized the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only be more widely known in the 1960s, when more research in medicine connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the dangers of their products. He claimed he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled the defendants were liable for warning.
The defendants claim that they didn't commit any crime since they knew about asbestos's dangers well before 1968. Expert testimony suggests that asbestosis may not manifest until 15, 20, or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. However, if New Haven asbestos attorneys are right, then the defendants could have been held responsible for the injuries of other workers who might be suffering from asbestosis earlier than Borel.
In addition, the defendants argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma due to his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing insulation. However, they ignore the evidence gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew of asbestos' dangers for a long time and suppressed this information.
The 1970s saw a surge in asbestos-related lawsuits, despite the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and thousands of asbestos-related illnesses were contracted by workers. In response to the lawsuit asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were created to compensate victims of asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation grew, it became evident that asbestos companies were liable for the damage caused by toxic products. The asbestos industry was forced to reforming their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of numerous articles that have been published in scholarly journals. 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. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, represents more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm is charged a fee of 33 percent plus costs on the settlements it receives from its clients. It has won some of the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation history including a $22 million award for a man suffering from mesothelioma who worked at a New York City steel plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and it has filed claims for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite this achievement, the firm is being criticized more frequently for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflated statistics. The firm has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response the company has announced an open defense fund and is looking for donations from both corporations and individuals.
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 money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who published papers in journals of academics to support their arguments.
Attorneys aren't just arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but they are also focusing on the other aspects of the cases. For example, they are arguing about the necessity of a constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that to be entitled to compensation, the victim must actually have known about the dangers of asbestos. They also dispute the compensation ratios for different asbestos-related diseases.
Attorneys for plaintiffs argue there is a substantial interest in compensating people who have suffered mesothelioma or related diseases. They claim that the asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the dangers, and they should be held accountable.