Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing businesses and employers have declared bankruptcy. Victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy as well as through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal actions in their cases.
A number of asbestos-related cases have been heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court has handled cases involving settlements of class actions seeking to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman named Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related illnesses and passed away. Her death was significant due to the fact that it sparked asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, cancer of the lung or other illnesses. These lawsuits led the way to trust funds being created which were used by bankrupt companies to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases. These funds have also enabled asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for their medical expenses as well as suffering.
In addition to the many deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to the material often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes family members to suffer from the same symptoms as their exposed counterparts. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues lung cancer, mesothelioma.
While asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous however, they minimized the risks and refused to warn their employees or clients. In fact, the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to hang warning signs on their buildings. Asbestos was found 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 start to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. By this time, doctors and health experts were already trying to warn people to asbestos' dangers. These efforts were generally successful. News articles and lawsuits raised 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 significant issue for people across the country. Asbest is still present in commercial and residential buildings even in buildings built prior to the 1970s. It is crucial that people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related illness, seek legal advice. An experienced lawyer can help them get the compensation they deserve. They will be able understand the complicated laws that apply to this particular case and will ensure that they get the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. The lawsuit claimed that the manufacturers failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This crucial case opened the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed.
The majority of the asbestos litigation involves claims by those who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers and plumbers are among the people who have been affected. Many of these workers currently suffer from mesothelioma as well as lung cancer. Some of these workers are also seeking compensation in the event that loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars may 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 loss of wages, suffering and pain. This money can also be used to pay for travel expenses funeral and burial costs and loss of companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced many companies into bankruptcy, and also created an asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. It has also placed pressure on federal and state courts. It has also sucked up countless hours of lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a long and expensive process that spanned many years. However, it was successful in exposing asbestos business executives who concealed the asbestos facts for years. These executives were aware of the risks and pressured workers to not talk about their health concerns.
After many years of trial and appeal and appeal, the court ruled in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was in reference to a 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injuries to consumers or users of his product when the product is supplied in a defective condition unaccompanied by adequate warning."
After the verdict was made, the defendants were ordered to pay the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. Watson passed away before her 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
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos-insulators like Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory problems and the thickening of fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, brushed aside asbestos its health risks. The truth would only become more widely known in the 1960s, when more research into medical science connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
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 of working with their insulation over 33 years. The court ruled the defendants owed a duty of warning.
The defendants argue that they did not breach their duty to inform because they knew or should be aware of the dangers of asbestos long before 1968. Expert testimony suggests that asbestosis might not be develop until 15 to 20, or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. If the experts are right the defendants could have been liable for the injuries sustained by other workers who might have been affected by asbestos before Borel.
Moreover, the defendants argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma since it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing insulation. Kazan Law gathered evidence that revealed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos' risks and suppressed the information for decades.
The 1970s saw a surge in asbestos-related lawsuits, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos-related lawsuits flooded the courts and thousands of asbestos-related illnesses were contracted by workers. In response to the litigation asbestos-related businesses, they went into bankruptcy. Trust funds were created to compensate victims of asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation grew, it became lawsuit asbestos clear that asbestos companies were liable for the damage caused by toxic materials. The asbestos industry was forced into changing their business practices. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in journals of scholarly research. He has also addressed the subject at numerous legal conferences and seminars. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has been a member of various committees that deal mesothelioma, asbestos, and mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg has more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm charges 33 percent plus expenses for compensation it obtains for clients. It has obtained some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22,000,000 settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at a New York City Steel Plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed claims on behalf of thousands of people suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite its success, the firm faces increased criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system and skewing statistics. In addition, the firm has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response the firm has launched an open 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 causes mesothelioma, even at very low levels. They have used the funds provided by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" to publish papers in journals of academic research that support their claims.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, attorneys are looking at other aspects of the cases. They argue, for instance regarding the constructive notice required to file an asbestos claim. They argue that to be eligible for compensation the victim must be aware of the dangers of asbestos. They also argue about the compensation ratios for different asbestos-related diseases.
Attorneys for plaintiffs argue there is a significant interest in compensating those who have suffered mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the dangers and that they must be held accountable.