Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s many asbestos-producing employers and companies have been bankrupted and the victims are paid through trust funds for bankruptcy as well as individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal maneuvering in their cases.
A number of asbestos-related cases have been heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases involving settlements for class actions that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related illnesses was a well-known case. Her case was significant because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims by patients diagnosed with mesothelioma, cancer of the lung, or other diseases. These lawsuits led the way to trust funds being created which were used by bankrupt companies to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as pain and suffering.
In addition to the numerous deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, those who are exposed to the material often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes the family members to experience the same symptoms as the exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory problems lung cancer, mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was a risk, but they hid the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies into their buildings to place warning signs. The company's own research, however, proved asbestos's carcinogenic properties as early as the 1930s.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was founded in 1971, but the agency did not begin to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. At this point doctors were attempting to inform the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were generally successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, however many asbestos firms resisted demands for a more strict regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a serious problem for people across the country. Asbest is still present in commercial and residential buildings even before the 1970s. It is essential that those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related illness, seek legal advice. An experienced attorney will assist them in getting the justice they deserve. They will be able to understand the complex laws that apply to this type of case and ensure that they get the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He filed the first lawsuit against asbestos-related product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers had failed warn about the dangers of their insulation products. This crucial case opened the way for tens and thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the near future.
The majority of the asbestos litigation involves claims from workers in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. Carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are among those who have been affected. A few of these workers are currently suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other asbestos-related diseases. Some of them are also seeking compensation in the case that their loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars could 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 suffering and pain. It can also be used to 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 asbestos trust funds to pay victims. It has also placed an immense burden on state and federal courts. In addition it has consumed thousands of hours by lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that stretched over decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos business executives who hid the asbestos truth for decades. They were aware of the dangers, and they pressured workers not to speak out about their health problems.
After years of appeals, trials and court rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based upon the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is responsible for the harm caused to an end-user or consumer of its product if 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 passed away before her final award could be given by the court. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court asbestos poisoning lawsuit to overturn the Appellate Court's decision.
Clarence Borel
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos insulators such as Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory ailments and the thickening of fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). But asbestos companies hid the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only become well-known in the 1960s, as more medical research identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the dangers their products could pose. He claimed that he had mesothelioma as a result working with their insulation for a period of 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants had a duty to warn.
The defendants argue that they did not violate their duty to warn because they were aware or ought to have known of the dangers of asbestos before the year 1968. Expert testimony suggests that asbestosis might not be develop until 15 to 20, or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right and the defendants are found to be negligent, they could have been held liable for the injuries sustained by other workers who may have suffered from asbestosis before Borel.
In addition, the defendants argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma because it was his decision to continue to work with asbestos-containing insulation. Kazan Law gathered evidence that proved that defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' risks and concealed the risk for decades.
The 1970s saw a surge 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. In response to the lawsuit, asbestos-related businesses went bankrupt. Trust funds were established to compensate asbestos-related illness victims. As the litigation progressed, it became apparent that asbestos companies were responsible for the damage caused by toxic products. Consequently, the asbestos industry was forced to reform 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 journals of academic research. He has also given talks on these topics at a variety of legal conferences and seminar. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has served on various committees that deal with mesothelioma and asbestos. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg has more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm charges 33 percent plus expenses for the compensation it receives from clients. It has won some of the biggest 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 a multitude of mesothelioma patients or other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite its achievements, the company faces increased criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflating the statistics. Additionally, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response, the firm has launched a public defence fund and is soliciting donations from corporations as well as individuals.
A second issue is that many defendants deny the scientific consensus that asbestos can cause mesothelioma even at low levels. They have resorted to money paid by asbestos companies to hire "experts" who published papers in journals of academics to support their claims.
Attorneys aren't only arguing over the scientific consensus on asbestos, but are also focusing on the other aspects of cases. They argue, for instance regarding the constructive notification required to file an asbestos claim. They argue that the victim must have had actual knowledge of asbestos's dangers to be eligible for compensation. They also dispute the compensation ratios for various asbestos-related illnesses.
Attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a significant public interest in granting compensation to those who have suffered from mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the companies that created asbestos ought to have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.