Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have stated that their cases were the subject of shady legal maneuvering.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard numerous asbestos-related cases. The court has heard cases that involved settlements of class actions 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 case was significant because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against various manufacturers, and led to an increase in claims from patients diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma, or other diseases. These lawsuits led the way to creation trust funds which were used by banksrupt companies to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds have also allowed asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses, suffering.
In addition to the numerous deaths that are linked to asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to asbestos often bring it home to their families. Inhaling the fibers causes family members to experience the same symptoms as the exposed counterparts. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Many asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was a risk, but they hid the risks and refused to inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies to enter their buildings to place warning signs. The company's own research however, proved asbestos's carcinogenic properties as early as the 1930s.
OSHA was established in 1971, but it began to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. By this time doctors were working to inform the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were mostly successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, however asbestos companies resisted demands for a more strict regulation.
Despite the fact asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue remains a major concern for people across the country. It's because asbestos continues to be found in homes and businesses even those constructed prior to the 1970s. This is why it's important for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or an asbestos-related illness to seek legal help. An experienced lawyer can help them get the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able to know the complicated laws that govern this kind of case, and ensure that they get the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis and filed the first lawsuit against asbestos-related manufacturers of products. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed warn about the dangers of their insulation products. This crucial case opened the floodgates for tens of thousands of similar lawsuits that continue to be filed today.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought by those who worked in the construction industry and utilized asbestos-containing products. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers and plumbers are among the people who have been affected. A few of these workers are now suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved relatives.
Millions of dollars could be awarded as damages in a suit against a manufacturer of asbestos products. Cedar Rapids asbestos attorney can be used to pay for the future and past medical expenses, lost wages and suffering and pain. This money can also be used to cover travel expenses funeral and burial costs as well as loss companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of companies to bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. It has also placed an immense burden on federal and state courts. It has also consumed countless hours of lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that spanned many years. But, it was successful in exposing asbestos company executives who concealed the asbestos truth for decades. These executives were aware of the risks and pushed employees to not speak up about their health concerns.
After many years of trial, appeal and court rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was taken from an edition of 1965 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 condition unaccompanied by adequate warning."
After the verdict was reached the defendants were ordered to pay the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. 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
In the late 1950s asbestos insulators like Borel were starting to complain about breathing problems and a thickening of their fingertip tissue, referred to as "finger clubbing." They filed claims for workers' compensation. However, asbestos companies minimized the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. The truth would only become more widely known in the 1960s, as more research into medical science linked asbestos to respiratory ailments like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for not warning about the dangers of their products could pose. He claimed he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation over 33 years. The court ruled that defendants were required to warn.
The defendants argue that they did not infringe their duty to inform because they knew or should have known about the dangers posed by asbestos long before 1968. They point to expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't manifest itself until fifteen or twenty, or even twenty-five years after first exposure to asbestos. If the experts are right the defendants could be liable for injuries suffered by other workers who might have been affected by asbestos before Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they shouldn't be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma because it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing insulation. However, they ignore the evidence collected by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' firms were aware about asbestos's dangers for a long time and suppressed this information.
Although the Claude Tomplait case was the first asbestos class action lawsuit in the 1970s, it was followed by an explosion of asbestos-related lawsuits. Asbestos lawsuits were aplenty in the courts and a multitude of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. In the wake of the litigation, many asbestos-related companies filed for bankruptcy and set up trust funds to pay for victims of asbestos-related diseases. As the litigation continued, it became clear that the asbestos companies were responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. The asbestos industry was forced into changing their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also spoken on these topics at a variety of legal conferences and seminar. He is a member of the American Bar Association, and has been a member of various committees dealing with mesothelioma and asbestos. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the country.
The firm is charged 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 history, including an award of $22 million for a man suffering from mesothelioma who worked at a New York City steel plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed lawsuits for a multitude of people suffering from mesothelioma, among other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite its success, the firm faces increased criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused by critics of promoting conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflating statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response to this, the firm has launched a public defense fund and is looking for donations from corporations and individuals.
Another issue is that a number of defendants are challenging the worldwide consensus of science that asbestos even at low levels can cause mesothelioma. They have resorted to money paid by asbestos companies to hire "experts" who have published articles in journals of academics to back their arguments.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, lawyers are also looking at other aspects of the case. For instance they are arguing over the necessity of a constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be entitled to compensation, the victim must actually have been aware of the dangers of asbestos. They also dispute the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related diseases.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs argue there is a significant public interest in awarding compensation to those who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They claim that the asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the dangers and that they must be held responsible.