Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing businesses and employers have been bankrupted. Victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and through individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have claimed that their cases were the subject of shady legal maneuvering.
A number of asbestos-related cases have been heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases involving settlements for class actions which sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a woman called Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related diseases and passed away. Her case was significant because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against various manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims from people who were diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma, or other diseases. These lawsuits led to the trust funds being created that were used by bankrupt companies to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses and suffering.
In addition to the numerous deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to asbestos often bring it home to their families. If this happens, family members breathe in the asbestos, causing them to experience the same symptoms similar to those who were exposed. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems mesothelioma, lung cancer and lung cancer.
Many asbestos companies knew asbestos was dangerous but they minimized the risks and refused to inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. The company's own studies, however, proved asbestos' carcinogenicity in the 1930s.
OSHA was founded in 1971. However, it was only able to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. By the time it was formed doctors and health experts were already trying to warn people to asbestos's dangers. These efforts were mostly successful. The news media and lawsuits began to educate people however, many asbestos companies resisted the call for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a serious problem for people across the country. Asbest is still found in homes and business even before the 1970s. This is the reason it's crucial for those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease to 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 complex laws which apply to this particular case and make sure they receive the best possible result.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in the year 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos producers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed warn consumers about the dangers of their insulation products. This landmark case opened the floodgates for thousands of similar lawsuits that continue to be filed today.
The majority of asbestos lawsuits are brought by those who worked in the construction industry and utilized asbestos-containing materials. These people include plumbers, electricians, carpenters as well as drywall installers and roofers. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved relatives.
Millions of dollars may be awarded in damages in a lawsuit against the maker of asbestos products. The money is used to pay for past and future medical expenses, lost wages and suffering and pain. It can also be used to pay for travel expenses funeral and burial expenses as well as loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of businesses into bankruptcy and created asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. It has also placed an immense burden on state and federal courts. In addition it has sucked up countless hours by lawyers and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took many decades. But, it was successful in exposing asbestos company executives who concealed the asbestos facts for years. They were aware of the risks and pressured workers to not talk about their health concerns.
After years of hearings and appeals and appeal, the court ruled in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was taken from a 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. Watson passed away before her final award could be asbestos class action lawsuit canada 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 latter half of 1950 asbestos insulators such as Borel were starting to complain of breathing issues and the thickening of their fingers tissue, which was referred to as "finger clubbing." They filed worker's compensation claims. The asbestos industry, however, downplayed asbestos as a health risk. In the 1960s, more research in medicine began to link asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for failing to warn of the dangers of their products. He claimed that he developed asbestosis and mesothelioma as a result of working with their insulation for thirty-three years. The court ruled the defendants owed a duty of warning.
The defendants claim that they did nothing wrong since they knew about asbestos' dangers long before 1968. They point to expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't show its symptoms until fifteen or 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 may have had asbestosis prior to Borel.
Furthermore, the defendants claim that they should not be held accountable for Borel's mesothelioma because it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing insulation. But they do not consider the evidence collected by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew about asbestos's dangers for decades and hid this information.
The 1970s saw an increase in asbestos-related litigation, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims crowded the courts, and thousands of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. As a result of the litigation, numerous asbestos-related businesses went under and created trust funds to compensate the victims of their asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation grew, it became clear that the asbestos companies were responsible for the harm caused by their harmful products. The asbestos industry was forced into reforming their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are resolved today for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of numerous articles that have been published in journals of academic research. He has also given talks on these topics at a number of legal seminars and conferences. He is a member the American Bar Association, and has served in various committees focusing on mesothelioma and asbestos. 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 obtained some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million settlement for a mesothelioma patient who worked at the New York City Steel Plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed lawsuits on behalf of tens of thousands of mesothelioma patients or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this success, the firm is being criticized more frequently for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and inflating statistics. The firm has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response to this, the firm has launched a public defense fund and is seeking donations from individuals and corporations.
Another issue is the fact 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 papers in journals of academics to support their arguments.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, lawyers are also focused on other aspects of the case. For example 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 for different asbestos-related diseases.
Attorneys for plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial public interest in awarding compensatory damages for people who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the risks, and must be held accountable.