Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing employers and companies have been bankrupted. Victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal maneuvering in their cases.
Several asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases involving class action settlements that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman named Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related diseases and died. It was a significant incident because it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against several manufacturers. This, in turn, led to an increase in claims from people diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other diseases. These lawsuits led to creation trust funds which were used by companies that went bankrupt to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as suffering.
In addition to the numerous deaths that are linked to asbestos exposure, people who are exposed to the material often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes the family members to suffer from the same symptoms as the exposed counterparts. These symptoms include chronic respiratory issues, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies knew that asbestos was a risk, but they hid the risks, and refused to inform their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies into their premises to put up warning signs. The company's own research, however, proved asbestos' carcinogenicity in the 1930s.
OSHA was established in 1971. However, it was only able to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. In the 1970s doctors were working to warn the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. The efforts were mostly successful. The media and lawsuits helped raise awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter 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 constructed prior to the 1970s. This is why it's important for those diagnosed with mesothelioma or an asbestos-related disease to seek legal help. An experienced attorney can help them get the justice they deserve. They will be able 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 and filed the first lawsuit against asbestos product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers failed to warn consumers about the dangers of their insulation products. This crucial case opened the way for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the future.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought by those who have worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These people include electricians, plumbers and carpenters and drywall installers as well as roofers. A few of these workers are now suffering from mesothelioma, cancer of the lung, and other asbestos-related diseases. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved ones.
Millions of dollars could be awarded in damages in a lawsuit brought against the manufacturer of asbestos-related products. These funds can be used to pay for the medical expenses of the past and in the future, lost wages and pain and suffering. It also pays for travel expenses, funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of businesses into bankruptcy and created an asbestos trust fund to pay victims. The litigation has also put a strain on the state and federal courts. Additionally it has sucked up countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and expensive process that spanned decades. But, it was successful in exposing asbestos company executives who had concealed the asbestos facts for years. These executives knew about the dangers and pressured workers to not talk about their health problems.
After years of appeals, trials and court rulings in favor of Tomplait. The court's ruling was based on a 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injury to a user or consumer of his product if the product is sold in a defective state 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 issue her final verdict. 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 such as Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory problems and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). However, the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only become more widely known in the 1960s as more research into medical science identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for not warning of the dangers of their products. He claimed he developed mesothelioma as a result working with their insulation for a period of 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants were liable for warning.
The defendants argue that they did not infringe their duty to warn because they knew or should have known of the dangers associated with asbestos well before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis can not develop until 15 to 20, or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. However, if these experts are right, then the defendants could have been held liable for the injuries sustained by others who may have suffered from asbestosis before Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they shouldn't be held accountable for the development of Borel's mesothelioma since it was his choice to to work with asbestos-containing insulation. Kazan Law gathered evidence that proved that defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' dangers and hid the risks for decades.
The 1970s saw a surge in asbestos-related lawsuits, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims crowded the courts and a large number of workers became sick with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the litigation asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were created to compensate asbestos-related illness victims. As the litigation grew it became evident that the asbestos companies were accountable for the damages caused by their toxic products. Consequently the asbestos industry was forced into a change in how they operated. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also given talks on these topics at a number of legal conferences and seminars. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has served in various committees dealing with mesothelioma and asbestos. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the nation.
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 million settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at a New York City Steel Plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed claims for thousands of people with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this achievement, the company is now being criticized more frequently for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of propagating conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflated statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response, the firm launched a public defence fund and is now seeking donations from individuals as well as companies.
Another issue is that many defendants do not believe that asbestos is a cause of mesothelioma, even at low levels. They have used funds paid by asbestos companies to pay "experts" to publish papers in academic journals that support their claims.
In addition to fighting over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, attorneys are focused on other aspects of the cases. For example, they are arguing about 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 to be eligible for compensation. Omaha asbestos attorneys argue over the compensation ratios for various asbestos-related diseases.
Attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a huge public interest in granting damages to compensate people who have suffered from mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the risks, and they should be held accountable.