How To Outsmart Your Boss In Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s many asbestos-producing companies and employers have gone through bankruptcy, and victims are compensated 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 heard cases involving settlements of class actions seeking to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a well-known case. Her death was significant due to the fact that it sparked asbestos lawsuits against various manufacturers, and led to an increase in claims by patients diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other diseases. These lawsuits led to creation trust funds which were used by banksrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as suffering.
The asbestos-effected workers often bring the asbestos-containing material 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 ailments, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Although many asbestos companies were aware asbestos was hazardous however, they minimized the risks and did not inform their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies into their buildings to install warning signs. The company's own studies, however, proved asbestos' carcinogenicity in the 1930s.
OSHA was established in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. By this time health professionals and doctors were already working to educate the public to asbestos's dangers. The efforts were mostly successful. News articles and lawsuits started to increase awareness, but many asbestos companies resisted the call for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a major issue for all Americans. It's because asbestos continues to be found in both businesses and homes even those constructed prior to the 1970s. This is why it's important for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease to seek legal help. An experienced attorney will assist them in getting the justice they deserve. They will be able to understand the complicated laws that apply to this particular case and will ensure that they receive the most favorable outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He filed the first lawsuit against asbestos-related product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers had failed 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 near future.
The majority of asbestos litigation involves claims from workers in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These include electricians, plumbers, carpenters, plumbers and drywall installers as well as roofers. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma as well as lung cancer. Some of them are seeking compensation in the event that loved ones have passed away.
A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer can result in millions of dollars in damages. These funds are used to pay the medical bills of the past and future as well as lost wages, suffering and pain. It can also be used to pay for travel costs funeral and burial costs, and loss companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced many businesses into bankruptcy and created an asbestos trust fund to compensate victims. It has also placed an immense burden on federal and state courts. It has also sucked up countless hours of lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned many years. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos business executives who concealed the truth about asbestos for decades. These executives knew of the risks and pressured workers to hide their health concerns.
After years of appeals, trial and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's ruling was taken from the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injuries to a user or consumer of his product when the product is sold in a defective state without adequate warning."
After the verdict was reached the defendants were ordered to pay the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. Watson died before her final award was given by the court. 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 latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory ailments and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). However, the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks of asbestos exposure. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s, when more research into medical science connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the dangers of their products. He claimed that he had mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation over a period of 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants owed a duty of warning.
The defendants claim that they did not infringe their duty to inform because they were aware or ought to have known of the dangers of asbestos well before 1968. They point to expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't show its symptoms until fifteen, twenty, or even 25 years after the first exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right, the defendants may have been responsible for injuries sustained by other workers who might have developed asbestosis before Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they shouldn't be held accountable for Borel's mesothelioma since it was his choice to continue to work with asbestos-containing insulation. However, they ignore the evidence gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew of asbestos' dangers for a long time and suppressed this information.
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. Santa Monica asbestos lawyer crowded the courts and a large number of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses. In response to the lawsuit asbestos-related businesses, they went into bankruptcy. Trust funds were established to compensate victims of asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation continued it became evident that the asbestos companies were responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. As a result, 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 journals of academic research. He has also given talks on these issues at several legal seminars and conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has served on various committees focusing on asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm charges 33 percent plus costs for any compensation it receives for clients. It has secured some of the largest settlements in asbestos litigation history, including a $22 million award for a man suffering from mesothelioma who worked at an New York City steel plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed claims for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite its achievements, the company is being criticized for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theory, attacking the jury system, and inflated statistics. In addition, the company has been accused of pursuing fraudulent claims. In response to this the firm has launched a public defense fund and is seeking donations from corporations and individuals.
Another issue is that a number of defendants are challenging the scientific consensus worldwide that asbestos even at very low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have used money paid by asbestos companies to hire "experts" to write papers in academic journals that support their arguments.
Attorneys are not only fighting over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but are also focusing on the other aspects of the cases. For instance they are fighting over the requirement for constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that the victim had actual knowledge of asbestos' dangers in order to receive compensation. They also debate the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related illnesses.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs argue there is a huge public interest in granting damages to compensate people who have suffered from mesothelioma and related diseases. They argue that the companies that produced asbestos should have been aware about the risks and must be held accountable.