Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing businesses and employers have gone bankrupt, and victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal actions in their cases.
Several asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has handled cases that involved settlements of class actions, which sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who passed away in the early 1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a well-known case. Her death was significant due to the fact that it sparked asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers and helped spark an increase in claims filed by patients diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer or other ailments. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds which were used by companies that have gone bankrupt to pay compensation for asbestos-related sufferers. These funds have also allowed asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for their medical expenses and suffering.
In addition to the many deaths that are linked to asbestos exposure, people who are exposed to the material often bring it home to their families. Inhaling asbestos fibers can cause family members to suffer from the same symptoms as the exposed counterparts. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems mesothelioma, lung cancer, and lung cancer.
Many asbestos companies knew asbestos was dangerous but they minimized the dangers, and chose not to inform their employees or customers. In fact the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to put up warning signs on their buildings. The company's own research however, proved that asbestos was carcinogenic as early as the 1930s.
OSHA was founded in 1971, but it began to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. By this time, doctors and health experts were already trying to warn people to asbestos' dangers. These efforts were largely successful. News articles and lawsuits raised awareness, but asbestos firms were resistant to calls for more stringent regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue is still a major concern for people across the nation. Asbest remains in businesses and homes even in buildings built prior to the 1970s. This is why it's important for those diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease to seek legal assistance. An experienced lawyer will assist them in getting the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able understand the complicated laws that apply to this kind of case and will ensure that they receive the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis and filed the first lawsuit against asbestos product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers failed to warn about the dangers of their insulation products. This landmark case paved 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. This includes electricians, plumbers and carpenters, drywall installers, and roofers. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Some of them are also seeking compensation in the event that their loved ones have passed away.
Millions of dollars can be awarded in damages in a lawsuit brought against the manufacturer of asbestos-related products. These funds are used to cover the medical expenses of the past and in the future loss of wages, pain and suffering. It can also be used to pay for travel costs funeral and burial costs, and loss companionship.
Asbestos lawsuits have forced a lot of companies into bankruptcy, and also created asbestos trust funds to pay victims. The litigation has also put a strain on federal and state courts. Additionally it has sucked up countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took many decades. But, it was successful in exposing asbestos business executives who had concealed the truth about asbestos for decades. These executives knew of the risks and pressured workers to keep quiet about their health issues.
After years of trial and appeal, the court ruled in favor of Tomplait. Dayton asbestos lawyer was based on the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is responsible for any injury suffered by an end-user or consumer 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 like Borel were starting to complain of breathing issues and the thickening of their fingers tissue, referred to as "finger clubbing." They submitted claims for worker's compensation. The asbestos industry, however, downplayed asbestos its health risks. In the 1960s, more research in medicine began to connect asbestos with respiratory illnesses like asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the dangers of 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 the defendants owed a duty of warning.
The defendants argue that they did not commit any wrongdoing since they knew about asbestos' dangers long before 1968. They cite testimony from experts that asbestosis does not manifest itself until fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five years after first exposure to asbestos. However, if these experts are right and the defendants are found to be negligent, they could have been held accountable for the injuries sustained by other workers who may be suffering from asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants argue that they aren't responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma because it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing substances. Kazan Law gathered evidence that revealed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos' risks and concealed the risk for decades.
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 claims filled the courts and thousands of workers became sick with asbestos-related diseases. As a result of the litigation, many asbestos-related businesses went under and created trust funds to compensate victims of asbestos-related diseases. As the litigation progressed, it became evident that asbestos companies were responsible for the harm caused by toxic materials. Consequently, the asbestos industry was forced to reform how they operated. Today, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also addressed the subject at numerous legal conferences and seminars. He is a member of the American Bar Association and has served on various committees dealing mesothelioma and asbestos as well as mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm charges 33 percent plus costs for any compensation it receives for clients. It has won some of the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation history including a $22 million award for a man with mesothelioma who worked at the New York City steel plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and it has filed claims for a multitude of people suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this success, the firm is being criticized more frequently 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 pursuing fraud claims. In response, the company launched a public defence fund and is currently seeking donations from private individuals as well as companies.
Another issue is that many defendants are attacking the worldwide consensus of science that asbestos even at low levels can cause mesothelioma. They have used money paid by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" who have published papers in academic journals to support their arguments.
Attorneys aren't just disputing the scientific consensus on asbestos, but are also focus on other aspects of cases. For example they are arguing over the requirement for constructive notice to file a claim for asbestos. They argue that the victim should have actually been aware of the dangers of asbestos in order to receive compensation. They also dispute the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related diseases.
Attorneys for plaintiffs argue there is a huge incentive to compensate people who have been affected by mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the companies who produced asbestos should have been aware about the risks and must be held accountable.