Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, numerous asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone bankrupt. Victims are compensated via trust funds for bankruptcy as well as through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal tactics in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard several asbestos-related cases. The court has heard cases involving settlements of class actions, which 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 because it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against several manufacturers. This in turn sparked an increase in claims filed by patients suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer or other ailments. The lawsuits against these companies resulted in the creation of trust funds which have been used by companies that have gone bankrupt to pay for 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 associated with asbestos exposure, those who are exposed to asbestos often bring it home to their families. When this happens, the family members inhale the fibers and suffer from the same ailments similar to those who were exposed. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies knew that asbestos was dangerous, but they downplayed the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies into their buildings to install warning signs. The company's own research, meanwhile, showed asbestos' carcinogenicity as early as the 1930s.
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 alert the public to asbestos's dangers. These efforts were generally successful. The news media and lawsuits began to educate people, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a significant issue for people across the country. This is due to asbestos continuing to be found in both businesses and homes even in those that were built prior to the 1970s. This is the reason it's crucial for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease to seek legal assistance. An experienced lawyer will assist them in obtaining the justice they deserve. They will be able to know the complicated laws that apply to this kind of case and can ensure that they get the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, brought the first lawsuit against asbestos producers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed warn consumers about the dangers of their insulation products. This landmark case paved the way for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the future.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought on behalf of people who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing materials. Plumbers, electricians and carpenters are among those who have been affected. Many of these workers currently suffer from mesothelioma as well as lung cancer. Some of them are seeking compensation in the event that loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars could be awarded as damages in a lawsuit against the manufacturer of asbestos-related products. These funds can be used to pay for past and future medical costs as well as lost wages, suffering and pain. It can also pay for travel expenses, funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of companies into bankruptcy, and also created an asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. It has also placed pressure on federal and state courts. Additionally it has consumed thousands of hours by lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that stretched over decades. However, it was successful in exposing asbestos executives who hid the truth about asbestos over many years. They were aware of the dangers and pressured workers to not talk about their health concerns.
After years of appeals, trial and court rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based upon the 1965 edition of Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for any injury suffered by an end-user or consumer of its product if it is sold in a defected condition without adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. Watson passed away before the final award could be made by the court. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court's decision.
Clarence Borel
In the late 1950s, asbestos insulators like Borel were starting to complain of breathing problems and a thickening of their fingertip tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed worker's compensation claims. But asbestos companies hid the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. In the 1960s, more research in medicine began to link asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the risks associated with their products could pose. He claimed he had developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled the defendants owed a duty of warning.
The defendants claim that they did not violate their duty to inform because they were aware or ought to be aware of the dangers associated with asbestos well before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis might not be manifest until 15, 20, or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. If these experts are right and the defendants are found to be negligent, they could have been held liable for the injuries sustained by others who may have been affected by asbestosis earlier than Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they should not be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma due to his decision to continue to work with asbestos-containing insulation. Kazan Law gathered evidence that revealed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos' dangers and concealed the risk for decades.
The 1970s saw an increase in asbestos-related litigation, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims crowded the courts, and thousands of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses. In response to the litigation, asbestos-related businesses went bankrupt. Trust funds were set up to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that asbestos companies were responsible to the extent of the harm caused by toxic products. Therefore, the asbestos industry was forced to reform the way they operated. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in journals of academic research. He has also addressed the subject at numerous legal conferences and seminars. He is a member of the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees that deal with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the United States.
The firm charges 33 percent plus the cost of expenses for compensation it obtains for clients. It has won some of the largest verdicts asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts in asbestos litigation history including the $22 million verdict for a mesothelioma patient who worked at an New York City steel plant. The firm is also representing 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed lawsuits for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this success, the firm is being criticized more frequently for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of promoting conspiracy theory, attacking the jury system, and inflated statistics. The company has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response, the firm has launched a public defense fund and is seeking donations from individuals and corporations.
A second problem is that a lot of defendants deny the scientific consensus that asbestos can cause mesothelioma, even at low levels. 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 about asbestos, but they are also focusing on the other aspects of the cases. For example they are fighting over the requirement for constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be eligible for compensation, the victim must actually have been aware of asbestos' dangers. They also argue about the compensation ratios among different types of asbestos-related illnesses.
Lawyers for plaintiffs claim there is a significant interest in compensating people who have suffered from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the dangers and they should be held responsible.