Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing companies and employers have gone bankrupt. Victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy as well as through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal actions in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard numerous asbestos-related cases. The court has handled cases involving class action settlements that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the early 1900s from asbestos-related illnesses, was a prominent case. Her death was notable because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers and triggered 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 that were used by banksrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their family members to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and pain.
In addition to the numerous deaths associated with asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to the material often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes the family members to suffer from the same symptoms as their exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues as well as lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous, but they downplayed the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or clients. In fact the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to put up warning signs in their offices. The company's own research, however, proved that asbestos was carcinogenic as early as the 1930s.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, but the agency did not begin to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. By this time doctors were working to warn the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. The efforts were generally successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted demands for a more strict regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue is still a major concern for people across the country. Asbest remains in homes and business even in buildings built prior to the 1970s. It is essential that those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related condition seek legal advice. A knowledgeable attorney can assist them in getting the justice they deserve. They will be able understand the complex laws which apply to this kind of case and make sure they get the best possible outcome.
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 posed by their insulation products. This important case set the stage for tens and 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 that employed asbestos-containing products. Carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are among the people who have been affected. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved ones.
A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer could result in millions of dollars in damages. This 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 costs, and loss companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of companies into bankruptcy, and also created an asbestos trust fund to pay victims. It has also put an immense burden on federal and state courts. It has also consumed countless hours of lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took many decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos company executives who concealed the truth about asbestos for decades. These executives were aware of the dangers and pushed workers to keep quiet about their health issues.
After many years of appeals, trials and court rulings in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based on a 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for any injury suffered by consumers or users of his product if the product is sold in a defective state not accompanied by adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. Watson died before her final award could be determined 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 ailments and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). But the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. In the 1960s, more research in medicine began to link asbestos with respiratory illnesses like asbestosis and mesothelioma.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for failing to warn about the dangers of their products. He claimed that he contracted mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled that the defendants had a duty of warning.
The defendants argue that they did not breach their duty to warn since they were aware or ought to be aware about the dangers posed by asbestos long before 1968. They point to expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't manifest its symptoms until fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five years after first exposure to asbestos. If these experts are correct the defendants could have been liable for the injuries that other workers might have developed asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants also argue that they aren't responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma because it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing substances. But they do not consider the evidence gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' firms were aware about asbestos's dangers for a long time and suppressed the information.
The 1970s saw an increase in asbestos-related litigation, in spite of the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos-related lawsuits flooded the courts and a multitude of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. In the wake of the litigation, a number of asbestos-related companies went bankrupt and set up trust funds to compensate the victims of their asbestos-related ailments. As the litigation progressed, it became evident that asbestos companies were responsible for the damage caused by toxic materials. asbestos exposure lawsuit The asbestos industry was forced into changing their business practices. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been resolved 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 variety of seminars and legal conferences. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has been a member of various committees dealing mesothelioma, asbestos, and mass torts. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the nation.
The firm is charged a fee of 33 percent plus costs for the settlements it receives from its clients. It has won some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at a New York City Steel Plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed claims on behalf of a multitude of patients suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this however, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system and skewing statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response, the firm has launched a public defense fund and is looking for donations from individuals and corporations.
A second problem is that a lot of defendants are against the consensus of science that asbestos is a cause of mesothelioma, even at low levels. They have resorted to money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who published papers in academic journals to back their arguments.
In addition to fighting over the scientific consensus on asbestos, lawyers are also looking at other aspects of the case. They argue, for instance, about the constructive notification required to file an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be eligible for compensation, the victim must actually have been aware of the dangers of asbestos. They also argue about the compensation ratios among different types of asbestos-related illnesses.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs argue there is a significant public interest in awarding compensatory damages for people who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They claim that the asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the risks, and must be held responsible.