The 10 Scariest Things About Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing businesses and employers have been bankrupted and the victims are paid through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal tactics in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard a number of asbestos attorney-related cases. The court has dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions seeking to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the early 1900s from asbestos-related illnesses was a well-known case. Her case was significant due to the fact that it sparked asbestos lawsuits against various manufacturers and helped spark an increase in claims by patients diagnosed with mesothelioma, cancer of the lung or other ailments. These lawsuits led the way to trust funds being created which were used by banksrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their family members to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and suffering.
In addition to the numerous deaths that are linked to asbestos exposure, those who are exposed to the material often bring it home to their families. Inhaling asbestos fibers can cause family members to suffer from the same symptoms as their exposed workers. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems mesothelioma, lung cancer, and lung cancer.
Although many asbestos attorney companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous however, they minimized the risks and refused to warn their employees or consumers. In fact the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to hang warning signs in their offices. Asbestos was found to be carcinogenic in the 1930s, according to research conducted by Johns Manville.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, but it did not begin to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. By the time it was formed health professionals and doctors were already trying to alert people to asbestos's dangers. These efforts were mostly successful. The news media and lawsuits began to increase awareness however many asbestos-related firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a serious problem for individuals throughout the country. It's because asbestos continues to be present in businesses and homes, even those built prior to the 1970s. It is crucial that people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related illness get legal advice. A knowledgeable attorney can assist them in obtaining the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will comprehend the complicated laws that apply to this kind of case and will make sure that they get the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. His lawsuit alleged that they didn't warn consumers 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 future.
The majority of asbestos lawsuits are brought by those who have worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing materials. These include electricians, plumbers and carpenters as well as drywall installers and roofers. Many of these workers currently suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved family members.
A lawsuit against an asbestos-product manufacturer can result in millions dollars in damages. This money can be used to cover past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. It also pays for travel expenses, funeral and burial costs, as well as loss of companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced many companies into bankruptcy, and also created an asbestos trust fund to compensate victims. It has also put an immense burden on federal and state courts. It has also sucked up countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and lengthy process that spanned several decades. But, it was successful in exposing asbestos-related company executives who had concealed the asbestos truth for decades. They were aware of the risks and pushed workers not to speak out about their health concerns.
After many years of appeal and trial and appeal, the court finally was in favor of Tomplait. The court's ruling was in reference to an edition of 1965 of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injury to consumers or users of his product if the product is supplied in a defective condition not accompanied by adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. Watson died before her final decision could be 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 like Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory issues and thickening fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). But the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only become well-known in the 1960s, when more medical research identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the risks associated with their products could pose. He claimed that he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled that the defendants were liable for warning.
The defendants argue that they did not violate their duty to warn since they knew or should have been aware of the dangers of asbestos before the year 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis might not be appear until 15 to 20 years or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. If the experts are right, then the defendants could have been held accountable for the injuries sustained by other workers who might have been affected by asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma since it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing substances. Kazan Law gathered evidence that revealed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos risks and concealed the risk for many years.
Although the Claude Tomplait case was the first asbestos class action lawsuit, the 1970s saw an explosion of asbestos-related lawsuits. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and thousands of asbestos-related illnesses were contracted by workers. In response to the litigation asbestos-related businesses, they went into bankruptcy. Trust funds were set up to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation grew, it became clear that asbestos companies were liable for the harm caused by toxic substances. The asbestos industry was forced to reforming their business practices. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of numerous articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also presented on these topics at various seminars and legal conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association and has been on numerous committees dealing mesothelioma and asbestos as well as mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the country.
The firm charges 33 percent plus costs for any compensation it receives for clients. It has won some the biggest settlements in asbestos litigation history such as an award of $22 million for a mesothelioma patient who worked at a 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 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 the statistics. The firm has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response to this the firm has launched a public defense fund and is looking for donations from corporations and individuals.
Another problem is that a lot of defendants deny the scientific consensus that asbestos is a cause of 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.
In addition to arguing about the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, lawyers are also focused on other aspects of the case. For instance they are fighting over the necessity of a constructive notice to file a claim for asbestos. They argue that to be qualified for compensation, the victim must actually have known about asbestos's dangers. They also debate the compensation ratios among various asbestos-related diseases.
Lawyers for plaintiffs claim there is a substantial interest in compensating 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.