Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing businesses and employers have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are paid through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have stated that their cases were the subject of suspect legal maneuvering.
Many asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has handled cases involving settlements of class actions that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman called Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related diseases and passed away. It was a significant incident because it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against a variety of manufacturers. This led to an increase in claims filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds, which were used by banksrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. New Britain asbestos attorney permit asbestos victims and their families to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and suffering.
In addition to the many deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to asbestos often bring it home to their families. When this happens, the family members inhale the fibers, causing them to suffer from the same ailments as the exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues as well as lung cancer and 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. Asbestos was discovered to be carcinogenic in the 1930s according to research conducted by JohnsManville.
OSHA was founded in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. At this point, doctors were trying to warn the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. The efforts were mostly successful. News articles and lawsuits raised awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulation.
Despite the fact asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue remains a major concern for people across the country. It's because asbestos continues to be present in businesses and homes even those constructed prior to the 1970s. This is why it's essential for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or an asbestos-related illness to seek legal help. A knowledgeable attorney can help them get the justice they deserve. They will be able to comprehend the complicated laws that govern this type of case and will ensure that they receive the most favorable result.
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 had failed warn 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 future.
The majority of asbestos litigation involves claims by those who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These people include plumbers, electricians, carpenters, drywall installers, and roofers. Some of these workers are currently suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer and other asbestos-related ailments. Some of them are seeking compensation in the event that loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars may be awarded as damages in a suit against the manufacturer of asbestos-related products. These funds are used to pay past and future medical costs as well as lost wages, suffering and pain. It can also be used to pay for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced a lot 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. Additionally it has consumed thousands of man-hours by attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and long-running process that lasted several decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos company executives who concealed the asbestos truth for decades. These executives knew about the dangers and pressured workers to not talk about their health problems.
After many years of appeal and trial, the court decided in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based on the 1965 edition of Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for any injury suffered by consumers or users of its product when it is sold in a defective condition, without adequate warning."
Following the decision, the defendants were ordered to pay damages to Tomplait's widow, Jacqueline Watson. Watson passed away before her final award was 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 latter half of 1950 asbestos insulators like Borel began to complain about breathing problems and the thickening of their fingers tissue, referred to as "finger clubbing." They filed worker's compensation claims. The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos its health risks. In the 1960s, more research in medicine began to link asbestos with respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for not warning about the dangers of their products. He claimed that he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled that defendants had a duty to warn.
The defendants claim that they did not commit any wrongdoing since they knew about asbestos' dangers long before 1968. They cite testimony from experts that asbestosis doesn't show its symptoms until fifteen twenty, twenty, or 25 years after the initial exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right the defendants could be liable for injuries suffered by other workers who might have been affected by asbestos before Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they should not be held accountable for Borel's mesothelioma due to his decision to continue to work 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 of the asbestos risks for a long time and suppressed the information.
The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related litigation, despite the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims crowded the courts, and thousands of workers became sick with asbestos-related illnesses. In the wake of the litigation, a number of asbestos-related businesses went under and established trust funds to pay for victims of their asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that the asbestos companies were accountable for the damages caused by their harmful products. Therefore the asbestos industry was forced to reform how they operated. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of several articles that were published in scholarly journals. He has also given talks on these topics at a number of legal seminars and conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees that deal with mesothelioma and asbestos. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm charges 33 percent plus expenses for compensation it obtains for clients. It has won some of the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer 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, among other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this achievement, the company is now confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and manipulating statistics. The firm has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response the firm has launched an open defense fund and is seeking donations from corporations and individuals.
Another issue is that a number of defendants are challenging the world-wide scientific consensus that asbestos even at low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have resorted to money paid by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" who have published articles in academic journals to support their claims.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus on asbestos, lawyers are also focused on other aspects of the cases. For example they are arguing over the constructive notice required to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim should have actually been aware of asbestos' dangers to be eligible for compensation. They also dispute the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related diseases.
Lawyers for plaintiffs argue that there is a huge interest in compensating those who have been affected by mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the companies who created asbestos ought to have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.