Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s many asbestos-producing businesses and employers have gone through bankruptcy, and victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal maneuvering in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard several asbestos-related cases. The court has handled cases involving class action settlements that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the early 1900s from asbestos-related ailments was a notable case. This was a significant event as it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against various manufacturers. This led to an increase in claims from patients diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other ailments. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds, which have been used by bankrupt manufacturers to pay compensation for asbestos-related sufferers. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their family members to receive compensation for medical expenses and suffering.
In addition to the numerous deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to the substance often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes the family members to suffer from the same symptoms as the exposed counterparts. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues as well as lung cancer and mesothelioma.
While many asbestos companies knew asbestos was a risk however, they minimized the risks and did not inform their employees or clients. 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 Johns Manville.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was founded in 1971, but it didn't start to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. At this point health professionals and doctors were already working to educate people to asbestos' dangers. The efforts were generally successful. Lawsuits and news articles were launched to raise awareness, but many asbestos companies were resistant to stricter regulations.
Despite the fact asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue remains a major issue for people across the nation. It's because asbestos continues to be present in businesses and homes even those constructed prior to the 1970s. This is the reason it's crucial for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or an asbestos-related illness to seek legal advice. An experienced attorney can help them get the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will understand the complex laws that govern this kind of case, and will ensure that they receive the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He filed the first lawsuit against asbestos-related product manufacturers. His lawsuit alleged that they did not warn consumers of the dangers associated with their insulation products. Burbank asbestos attorneys opened the floodgates to tens of thousands of similar lawsuits that continue to be filed.
The majority of asbestos litigation involves claims from people who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These people include plumbers, electricians, carpenters as well as drywall installers and roofers. Some of these workers suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved relatives.
Millions of dollars may be awarded in damages in a suit against a manufacturer of asbestos products. This money is used to pay for past and future medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. It can also be used to pay for travel costs 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 consumed many hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that stretched over decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and expensive process that spanned decades. However, it was successful in uncovering asbestos executives who had hid the truth about asbestos for many years. They were aware of the dangers and pressured workers to keep quiet about their health concerns.
After years of trial, appeal and court rulings in favor of Tomplait. The court's ruling was taken from an edition of 1965 of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for any injury suffered by a user or consumer of his product if the product is sold in a defective state without adequate warning."
Following the decision 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 offered to appeal the Appellate Court decision to the California Supreme Court.
Clarence Borel
In the late 1950s asbestos insulators like Borel were starting to complain of breathing problems and the thickening of their fingers tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed claims for workers' compensation. But the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s as more medical research connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the risks associated with their products could pose. He claimed that he had mesothelioma as a result working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants had a duty of warning.
The defendants claim that they did not commit any wrongdoing because they knew about asbestos' dangers long before 1968. Expert testimony suggests that asbestosis can not develop until 15 to 20, or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. However, if these experts are correct, then the defendants could have been held accountable for the injuries sustained by others who may have suffered from asbestosis before Borel.
In addition, the defendants argue that they should not be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma since it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing insulation. Kazan Law gathered evidence that proved that defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' risks and suppressed the information for decades.
The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related lawsuits, in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims filled the courts, and thousands of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses. In response to the lawsuit asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were established to compensate victims of asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed it became evident that asbestos companies were liable for the damage caused by toxic substances. The asbestos industry was forced into changing their business practices. Today, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been resolved for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of numerous articles published in scholarly journals. He has also presented on these subjects at various seminars and legal conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has served on various committees dealing with mesothelioma and asbestos. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg has more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm charges a 33 percent fee plus costs for the compensations it receives for its clients. It has won some of the biggest settlements in asbestos litigation history, including a $22 million award for a mesothelioma patient who worked at the New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed claims on behalf of a multitude of patients suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite this however, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of promoting conspiracy theory, attacking the jury system, and inflating the statistics. Additionally, the company has been accused of pursuing fraudulent 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 number of defendants are challenging the scientific consensus worldwide that asbestos even at very low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have used the money provided by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who have published papers in journals of academics to support their claims.
Attorneys aren't only fighting over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but they are also focus on other aspects of the cases. For example they are arguing over the necessity of a constructive notice to file a claim for asbestos. They claim that the victim should have actually been aware of the dangers of asbestos in order to be eligible for compensation. They also argue about the proportion of compensation among different types of asbestos-related illnesses.
Lawyers for plaintiffs argue that there is a huge incentive to compensate people who have suffered from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the risks, and that they must be held responsible.