15 Twitter Accounts You Should Follow To Find Out More About Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing companies and employers have been bankrupted and the victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported that their cases were the subject of suspicious legal maneuvering.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard a number of asbestos-related cases. The court has dealt with cases involving settlements of class actions that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a well-known case. This was a significant event because it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against a variety of manufacturers. This in turn sparked an increase in claims from people suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma or other illnesses. These lawsuits led to the creation trust funds that were used by companies that went bankrupt to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases. These funds have also enabled asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses, suffering.
People who have been exposed to asbestos frequently bring the asbestos-containing material home to their families. If this happens, family members inhale the fibers, causing them to suffer from the same symptoms similar to those who were exposed. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
While asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous however, they minimized the risks and refused to warn 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 discovered to be carcinogenic in the 1930s, according to research conducted by Johns Manville.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, however, it did not begin to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. By this time doctors and health experts were already trying to warn the public to asbestos's dangers. The efforts were mostly successful. The media and lawsuits helped raise awareness, however many asbestos firms resisted demands for a more strict regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a major issue for all Americans. It's because asbestos continues to be found in homes and businesses, even those built prior to the 1970s. This is why it's important for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related illness to seek legal help. An experienced lawyer will assist them in obtaining the compensation they deserve. They will be able to comprehend the complicated laws that apply to this type case and make sure they get the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis and filed the first lawsuit against asbestos-related product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This important case triggered the floodgates of thousands of similar lawsuits that continue to be filed today.
The majority of the asbestos litigation involves claims from people who worked in construction industries that used asbestos-containing products. These include electricians, plumbers and carpenters, drywall installers, and roofers. Rio Rancho asbestos lawsuit of these workers suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Some of them are seeking compensation in the case that their loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars could be awarded as damages in a lawsuit brought against the maker of asbestos products. This money is used to cover future and past medical expenses, lost wages and suffering and pain. This money can also be used to cover travel expenses funeral and burial expenses, 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 pressure on federal and state courts. In addition it has sucked up countless man-hours by attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and long-running process that lasted several decades. However, it was successful in exposing asbestos-related company executives who had concealed the asbestos facts for years. These executives were aware of the dangers and pressured employees to conceal their health issues.
After years of hearings and appeals, the court ruled in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based on the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for injury to consumers or users of its product when it is sold in a defective condition without adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. Watson died before her final award could be determined by the court. Kazan Law offered to appeal the Appellate Court decision to the California Supreme Court.
Clarence Borel
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos insulators like Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory ailments and thickening fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, brushed aside asbestos its health risks. The truth would only become widely known in the 1960s, as more research into medical science identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the risks associated with their products. He claimed that he contracted mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled that defendants had a duty to warn.
The defendants argue that they did not breach their duty to warn because they were aware or ought to have known about the dangers posed by asbestos 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 the experts are right, then the defendants could have been held responsible for the injuries sustained by other workers who might be suffering from asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants argue that they shouldn't be held accountable for the mesothelioma of Borel, as it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing products. However, they ignore the evidence collected by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' businesses were aware of the asbestos risks for decades and suppressed the information.
The 1970s saw an increase in asbestos-related litigation, in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits were aplenty in the courts and a multitude of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. As a result of the litigation, a number of asbestos-related companies went bankrupt and set up trust funds to compensate victims of asbestos-related diseases. As the litigation grew, it became apparent that asbestos companies were responsible to the extent of the harm caused by toxic substances. Consequently the asbestos industry was forced to change the way they operated. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of a number articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also given talks on these issues at several legal seminars and conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has served in various committees dealing with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg has more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm charges 33 percent plus the cost of expenses for the compensation it receives from clients. It has won some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22,000,000 settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at an New York City Steel Plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed lawsuits on behalf of tens of thousands of people suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite this success however, the firm is being criticized more frequently for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system and skewing the statistics. The company has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response the firm has launched an open defense fund and is looking for donations from individuals and corporations.
A second problem is that a lot of defendants do not believe that asbestos can cause mesothelioma, even at very low levels. They have resorted to money paid by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" who published papers in academic journals to support their arguments.
Attorneys aren't just arguing over the scientific consensus on asbestos, but they are also focus on other aspects of the cases. They are arguing, for instance, about the constructive notification required to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim should have had actual knowledge of asbestos' dangers to be eligible for compensation. They also dispute the compensation ratios for different asbestos-related diseases.
Attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial public interest in granting damages to compensate people who have suffered from mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the companies who created asbestos ought to have been aware about the risks and must be held accountable.