Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, numerous asbestos-producing companies and employers have declared bankruptcy. Victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have claimed that their cases were the subject of suspect legal maneuvering.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard a number of asbestos-related cases. The court has heard cases involving settlements of class actions that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman named Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related illnesses and passed away. This was a significant event as it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against a variety of manufacturers. This, in turn, led to an increase of claims from those suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer or other illnesses. These lawsuits led to trust funds created by the government which were used by banksrupt companies to pay 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 material home to their families. Inhaling asbestos fibers can cause family members to suffer from the same symptoms as their exposed workers. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory problems, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.
While asbestos companies were aware asbestos was hazardous but they hid the dangers and did not inform 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 identified as carcinogenic in the 1930s, according to research conducted by Johns Manville.
OSHA was founded in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. By this time doctors were attempting to educate the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. The efforts were mostly successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, but asbestos firms were resistant to calls for stricter regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue remains a major concern for people across the country. This is due to asbestos continuing to be found in both businesses and homes even in those that were built prior to the 1970s. This is why it's essential for those diagnosed with mesothelioma or an asbestos-related illness to seek legal assistance. An experienced attorney will assist them in obtaining the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able to understand the complex laws that govern this type of case and ensure that they receive the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He then filed his first lawsuit against asbestos-related product manufacturers. His lawsuit alleged that they did not warn consumers of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This landmark case paved the way for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the future.
The majority of the asbestos litigation involves claims by workers in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. These include electricians, plumbers and carpenters and drywall installers as well as roofers. Many of these workers currently suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved family members.
A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer could 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 as well as loss companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of companies into bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. It has also placed a strain on federal and state courts. Additionally, it has consumed countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was an expensive and long-running process that lasted many decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos-related company executives who had concealed the truth about asbestos for decades. These executives were aware of the dangers, and they pressured workers to not talk about their health concerns.
After years of appeal and trial and appeal, the court was in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based upon the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for the harm caused to consumers or users of its product if it is sold in a defective condition without adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court after the verdict. However Ms. Watson died before the court could issue her final award. 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 such as Borel began to complain of breathing problems and thickening of their fingertip tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed claims for workers' compensation. The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos as a health risk. The truth would only be well-known in the 1960s, as more research in medicine identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for not warning of the dangers of their products. He claimed he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants were liable for warning.
The defendants claim that they did not breach their duty to inform because they were aware or ought to be aware of the dangers associated with asbestos long before 1968. They point to expert testimony that asbestosis does not manifest its symptoms until fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five years after first exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right they could have been responsible for injuries that other workers might have been affected by asbestos before Borel.
The defendants also claim that they aren't accountable for the mesothelioma of Borel since it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing materials. Kazan Law gathered evidence that revealed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos risks and suppressed the information 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 were aplenty in the courts and thousands of asbestos-related illnesses were contracted by workers. In Gainesville asbestos lawsuits to the lawsuit asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were created to compensate victims of asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed it became evident that asbestos companies were responsible for the damage caused by their harmful products. Therefore the asbestos industry was forced to reform the way they conducted business. 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 were published in journals of scholarly research. He has also spoken on these topics at a variety of seminars and legal conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association, and has served in various committees that deal with mesothelioma and asbestos. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, represents more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm charges a 33 percent fee plus costs on compensations it obtains for its clients. It has secured some of the biggest verdicts in the history of asbestos litigation including a $22 million award for a man with mesothelioma who worked at an New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed lawsuits on behalf of tens of thousands of people suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite its achievements, the company faces increased criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflating the statistics. In addition, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response, the firm has launched a public defense fund and is looking for donations from both corporations and individuals.
Another issue is the fact that many defendants are attacking the worldwide consensus of science that asbestos even at very low levels can cause mesothelioma. They have used money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who have published papers in academic journals to back their arguments.
Attorneys aren't only fighting over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but are also focus on other aspects of cases. For example, they are arguing about the requirement for constructive notice to file a claim for asbestos. They argue that in order to be qualified for compensation the victim must be aware of asbestos' dangers. They also argue about the proportion of compensation among different types of asbestos-related illnesses.
The attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a huge public interest in awarding damages to compensate people who suffer from mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the dangers and must be held accountable.