Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing businesses and employers have been bankrupted and the victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy as well as individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have stated that their cases were the subject of shady legal maneuvering.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard several asbestos-related cases. The court has handled cases involving class action settlements that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the early 1900s from asbestos-related ailments, was a prominent case. Her case was significant because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against a variety of manufacturers and helped spark an increase in claims filed by people who were diagnosed with mesothelioma, cancer of the lung, or other diseases. The lawsuits against these companies resulted in the creation of trust funds which have been used by bankrupt manufacturers to pay for asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their family members to receive compensation for medical expenses and pain.
In addition to the many deaths associated with asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to asbestos often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes the family members to experience the same symptoms as the exposed workers. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues lung cancer, mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies knew that asbestos was dangerous, but they downplayed the risks and refused to inform their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. The company's own studies, revealed that asbestos was carcinogenic in the 1930s.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, but it did not start to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. In the 1970s doctors were attempting to inform the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. The efforts were mostly successful. News articles and lawsuits raised awareness, but asbestos firms were resistant to calls for stricter regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a significant issue for individuals throughout the country. Asbest is still found in homes and business even in buildings built prior to the 1970s. This is why it's essential for those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease to seek legal advice. An experienced attorney can assist them in obtaining the compensation they deserve. They will understand the complex laws that apply to this kind of case, and can ensure that they receive the most favorable result.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in the year 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos producers. The suit claimed that the companies did not warn consumers of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This important case set the stage for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the near future.
The majority of asbestos litigation involves claims from those who worked in construction industries that used asbestos-containing products. Carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are among those who have been affected. A few of these workers are suffering from mesothelioma, cancer of the lung and other asbestos-related illnesses. Some of these workers are also seeking compensation in the event that loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars may 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 be used to pay for travel expenses funeral and burial expenses and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation forced many companies into bankruptcy, and also created an asbestos trust fund to compensate victims. The litigation has also put pressure on federal and state courts. It has also consumed many hours of witnesses and attorneys.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and long-running process that took many decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned years. However it was successful in exposing asbestos executives who hid the truth about asbestos over many years. These executives were aware of the dangers and pushed workers to hide their health issues.
After many years of trial and appeal and appeal, the court ruled in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was taken from a 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injury to a user or consumer of his product when the product is sold in a defective state not accompanied by adequate warning."
Following the decision the defendants were ordered to pay damages to Tomplait's widow, Jacqueline Watson. However Ms. Watson died before the court could issue her final award. 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 issues and the thickening of fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, brushed aside asbestos' health risks. The truth would only become widely known in the 1960s, when more research in medicine identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the risks associated with their products could pose to their users. He claimed he had developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court found that the defendants had a duty of warning.
The defendants claim that they did not violate their duty to warn because they knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with asbestos well before 1968. They point to expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't manifest itself until fifteen, twenty, or even 25 years after the first exposure to asbestos. However, if these experts are correct then the defendants could have been held responsible for the injuries suffered 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 choice to working with asbestos-containing insulation. But they do not consider the evidence that was gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' businesses were aware about asbestos's dangers for a long time and suppressed this information.
The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related litigation, mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims filled the courts and a large number of workers became sick with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the lawsuit, asbestos-related businesses went bankrupt. Trust funds were created to compensate victims of asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed, it became clear that asbestos-related companies were accountable for the harm caused by toxic substances. 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 spoken on these issues at several legal seminars and conferences. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has been on numerous committees dealing with mesothelioma, asbestos and mass torts. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the country.
The firm charges a fee of 33 percent plus costs on the settlements it receives from its clients. It has obtained some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million award for a mesothelioma patient who worked at an New York City Steel Plant. The firm is also representing 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and it has filed claims for a multitude of people suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this success, the company is now being criticized more frequently for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of promoting conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflating statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response to this, the firm has launched an open defense fund and is seeking donations from individuals and corporations.
Another issue is that a lot of defendants are attempting to undermine the world-wide scientific consensus that asbestos even at low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have resorted to money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who published papers in journals of academics to support their arguments.
Attorneys aren't just fighting over the scientific consensus on asbestos, but also focus on other aspects of the cases. For instance they are arguing over the constructive notice required to file a claim for asbestos. They argue that the victim had a real understanding of the dangers of asbestos in order to be eligible for compensation. They also debate the proportion of compensation among various asbestos-related diseases.
The attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a significant 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.