Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing companies and employers have been bankrupted. Victims are compensated by trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal actions in their cases.
Several 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 died. It was a significant incident as it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against various manufacturers. This in turn sparked an increase of claims from those diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other ailments. These lawsuits led the way to trust funds created by the government which were used by bankrupt companies to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and suffering.
People who have been exposed to asbestos frequently bring the asbestos-containing material home to their families. If this happens, family members inhale the fibers, causing them to experience the same symptoms as the exposed worker. These symptoms include chronic respiratory ailments, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies knew asbestos was a risk, but they hid the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or clients. In reality, the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to install warning signs in their offices. Asbestos was discovered to be carcinogenic in the 1930s, according to research conducted by JohnsManville.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, however, it didn't start to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. In the 1970s, doctors were trying to warn the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were largely successful. News articles and lawsuits started to educate people however, many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a major issue for people across the country. Asbest is still found in businesses and homes, even those built before the 1970s. This is why it's important for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related illness to seek legal assistance. An experienced lawyer can assist them in getting the compensation they deserve. They will be able understand the complex laws which apply to this type case and make sure they receive the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He then filed his first lawsuit against asbestos-related product manufacturers. The suit claimed that the companies didn't warn consumers about the dangers associated with their insulation products. This crucial case opened the way for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the near future.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought by those who have worked in the construction industry and employed asbestos-containing materials. Carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are among the people who have been affected. A few of these workers are currently suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer and other asbestos-related illnesses. Some of them are also seeking compensation in the case that their loved ones have died.
Millions of dollars could be awarded as damages in a suit against a manufacturer of asbestos products. The money is used to cover past and future medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. This money can also be used to pay for travel expenses funeral and burial expenses, and loss companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced many companies to bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. The litigation has also put pressure on the state and federal courts. It has also consumed many hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned decades. But, Chula Vista asbestos lawyers was successful in exposing asbestos business executives who had concealed the asbestos facts for years. They were aware of the risks and pushed workers to not talk about their health issues.
After years of appeals, trials and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based on an edition of 1965 of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injuries to the consumer or user of his product if the product is sold in a defective condition without adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife, was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. Watson died 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
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos-insulators such as Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory issues and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). However, the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. In the 1960s, more medical research began to link asbestos with respiratory diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for failing to warn about the risks of their products. He claimed that he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled the defendants were liable for warning.
The defendants argue that they did not infringe their duty to warn because they knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with asbestos long before 1968. They cite expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't show its symptoms until fifteen twenty, twenty, or 25 years after the first exposure to asbestos. If these experts are correct the defendants could have been liable for the injuries that other workers may have had asbestosis prior to Borel.
The defendants argue that they shouldn't be held accountable for the mesothelioma that Borel contracted since it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing substances. Kazan Law gathered evidence that proved that defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' dangers and suppressed the information for decades.
Although the Claude Tomplait case was the first asbestos class action lawsuit in the 1970s, the decade of 1970 saw an explosion of asbestos-related lawsuits. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and a multitude of asbestos-related illnesses were contracted by workers. In the wake of the litigation, numerous asbestos-related companies went bankrupt and established trust funds to compensate victims of their asbestos-related ailments. As the litigation continued, it became clear that asbestos companies were accountable for the damage caused by their harmful products. Consequently, the asbestos industry was forced into a change in the way they conducted business. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are resolved today 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 these topics at a number of seminars and legal conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees dealing with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.
The firm charges a 33 percent fee plus costs for the settlements it receives from its clients. It has secured some of the biggest settlements in asbestos litigation history, including a $22 million award for a mesothelioma patient who worked at an New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed claims on behalf of thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this achievement however, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of propagating conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflated statistics. The company has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response the firm has launched an open defense fund and is seeking donations from both corporations and individuals.
A second issue is that many defendants are against the consensus of science that asbestos causes mesothelioma, even at low levels. They have used the funds provided by asbestos companies to pay "experts" to write papers in journals of academic research that support their arguments.
Attorneys are not only disputing the scientific consensus about asbestos, but are also focus on other aspects of cases. They are arguing, for example regarding the constructive notification required to file an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be qualified for compensation, the victim must actually have known about asbestos' dangers. They also argue over the compensation ratios for different types of asbestos-related illnesses.
The attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial public interest in granting damages to compensate people who suffer from mesothelioma and related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the dangers, and they should be held accountable.