Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal maneuvering in their cases.
Many asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions seeking 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 case because it triggered asbestos lawsuits being filed against several manufacturers. This, in turn, led to an increase in claims filed by patients suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma or other diseases. The lawsuits against these companies resulted in the creation of trust funds which have been used by banksrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for their medical expenses as well as suffering.
People who have been exposed to asbestos frequently bring the substance home to their families. When this happens, the family members inhale the fibers, causing them to suffer from the same ailments as the asbestos-exposed worker. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems, 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 clients. In fact, the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to install warning signs on their buildings. The company's own research, however, proved asbestos's carcinogenic properties in the 1930s.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was founded in 1971, but it did not start to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. By this time health professionals and doctors were already trying to warn the public to asbestos's dangers. These efforts were mostly successful. The news media and lawsuits began to increase awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue remains an issue for many across the country. It's because asbestos continues to be found in both businesses and homes even those constructed prior to the 1970s. It is important that individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related illness get legal advice. An experienced attorney can help them get the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able to comprehend the intricate laws that apply to this kind of case and ensure that they receive the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He filed the first lawsuit against asbestos product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This crucial case opened the way for tens and thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the future.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought on behalf of people who have worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. This includes electricians, plumbers and carpenters as well as drywall installers and roofers. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma as well as lung cancer. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved relatives.
A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer can result in millions of dollars in damages. The money is used to pay for future and past medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. This money can also be used to pay for travel costs funeral and burial expenses and loss of companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced a lot of businesses into bankruptcy and created asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. The litigation has also put a strain on the state and federal courts. Additionally, it has consumed countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took several decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and expensive process that spanned years. However, it was successful in the exposing of asbestos executives who kept the truth about asbestos over many years. They were aware of the dangers, and they pressured employees to not speak up about their health concerns.
After many years of trial, appeal 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 the harm caused to the consumer or end-user of its product when it is sold in a defective condition, without adequate warning."
Following the decision, 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 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 thickening fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos its health risks. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s as more research in medicine linked asbestos to respiratory ailments such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the risks associated with their products could pose. He claimed he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for a period of 33 years. The court ruled that defendants had a responsibility to warn.
The defendants argue that they didn't commit any crime since they knew about asbestos' dangers long before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis might not be develop until 15 to 20, or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. If these experts are correct they could have been liable for the injuries that other workers might have developed asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants also claim that they aren't responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma because it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing materials. Kazan Law gathered evidence that showed the defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' risks and concealed the risk for many years.
The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related lawsuits, in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos-related lawsuits flooded the courts and a multitude of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. In the wake of the litigation, a number of asbestos-related companies went bankrupt and created trust funds to compensate victims of their asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that the asbestos companies were responsible for the damage caused by their toxic products. The asbestos industry was forced into reforming their business practices. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been resolved for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also given talks on the subject at numerous legal conferences and seminars. He is a member of the American Bar Association and has been on numerous committees dealing mesothelioma, asbestos, and mass torts. Gresham asbestos lawsuits , Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.
The firm charges 33 percent plus the cost of expenses for compensation it obtains for clients. It has won some the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation history such as the $22 million verdict for a man suffering from mesothelioma who worked at the New York City steel plant. The firm is also representing 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and it has filed claims for thousands of people with mesothelioma, among other asbestos-related illnesses.
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. Additionally, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response to this, the firm has launched a public defense fund and is looking for donations from individuals and corporations.
Another issue is that a number of defendants are challenging the world-wide scientific consensus that asbestos even at very low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have resorted to money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who have published papers in journals of academics to back their arguments.
Attorneys aren't only disputing the scientific consensus on asbestos, but are also focus on other aspects of the cases. For example they are fighting over the constructive notice required to file an asbestos claim. They argue that the victim had a real understanding of the dangers of asbestos in order to receive compensation. They also debate the compensation ratios for different asbestos-related diseases.
Lawyers for plaintiffs claim there is a significant incentive to compensate people who have suffered mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that the companies that produced asbestos should have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.