Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, numerous asbestos-producing businesses and employers have been bankrupted. Victims are compensated via trust funds for bankruptcy as well as through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have stated that their cases were the subject of shady legal maneuvering.
Many asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has handled 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 illnesses and passed away. Her death was significant because it triggered asbestos lawsuits against a variety of manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims by people who were diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other ailments. These lawsuits led to the trust funds being created that were used by bankrupt companies to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds have also allowed asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for their medical expenses, suffering.
In addition to the many deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, those who are exposed to the substance often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes family members to experience the same symptoms as the exposed workers. These symptoms include chronic respiratory issues, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Although many asbestos companies were aware asbestos was a risk but they hid the dangers and did not inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. Asbestos was identified as carcinogenic in the 1930s according to research conducted by Johns Manville.
OSHA was established in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos in the 1970s. By the time it was formed doctors and health experts were already working to educate people to asbestos' dangers. The efforts were mostly successful. Lawsuits and news articles were launched to educate people however many asbestos-related companies were resistant to stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a serious problem for people across the country. Asbest remains in commercial and residential buildings, even those built before the 1970s. It is crucial that people diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related condition seek legal advice. A knowledgeable attorney can assist them in getting the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able to understand the intricate laws that apply to this type case and make sure they receive the most favorable outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers of products. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This landmark case opened the floodgates to hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed today.
The majority of asbestos lawsuits are brought on behalf of people who have worked in the construction industry and utilized asbestos-containing materials. These people include electricians, plumbers and carpenters as well as drywall installers and roofers. Some of these workers suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved relatives.
Millions of dollars can be awarded as damages in a suit against the maker of asbestos products. These funds can be used to pay for past and future medical costs, 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 businesses into bankruptcy and created an asbestos trust fund to compensate victims. The litigation has also put a strain on federal and state courts. It has also sucked up countless hours of witnesses and attorneys.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and long-running process that took many decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that stretched over decades. 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 pressured employees to conceal their health concerns.
After many years of appeals, trial and court rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was in reference to the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injuries to consumers or users of his product when the product is supplied in a defective condition without adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court following the verdict. 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
In the late 1950s, asbestos insulators like Borel began to complain about breathing problems and a thickening of their fingertip tissue, called "finger clubbing." They submitted claims for worker's compensation. The asbestos industry, however, downplayed asbestos as a health risk. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s as more medical research connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation material manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the risks associated with their products. He claimed he had developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled that defendants had a responsibility to warn.
The defendants claim that they did nothing wrong because they knew about asbestos' dangers long before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis may not manifest until 15, 20, or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. However, if these experts are correct, then the defendants could have been held accountable for the injuries of others who may have suffered from asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants also claim that they aren't accountable for the mesothelioma that Borel contracted since it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing materials. Kazan Law gathered evidence that showed the 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, the 1970s saw an explosion of asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos-related claims flooded the courts, and thousands of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the litigation asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were established to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation grew it became evident that asbestos-related companies were accountable for the harm caused by their toxic products. The asbestos industry was forced into reforming their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of several articles 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 served on various committees that deal with asbestos and mesothelioma. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, represents more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm charges a fee of 33 percent plus costs for the settlements it receives from its clients. It has secured some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22,000,000 settlement for a mesothelioma military asbestos lawsuit 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 mesothelioma patients or other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite this achievement, the firm is facing increased criticism over its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system and skewing statistics. In addition, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response, the firm has launched a public defence fund and is now seeking donations from individuals as well as companies.
Another issue is the fact 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 asbestos companies to hire "experts" who have published papers in academic journals to support their arguments.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, lawyers are also focused on other aspects of the cases. For example they are arguing over the requirement for constructive notice to file a claim for asbestos. They argue that the victim actually been aware of asbestos's dangers in order to receive compensation. They also argue over the compensation ratios for different types of asbestos-related illnesses.
Lawyers for plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial incentive to compensate people who have been affected by mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the risks, and they should be held responsible.