Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing businesses and employers have been bankrupted and the victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal tactics in their cases.
Many asbestos-related cases have gone before the United States Supreme Court. The court has heard cases that involved settlements of class actions that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a lady named Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related illnesses and passed away. It was a significant incident because it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against several manufacturers. This led to an increase of claims from people suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma or other ailments. These lawsuits led the way to creation trust funds which were used by bankrupt companies to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as pain.
The asbestos-effected workers often bring the material home to their families. If this happens, family members inhale the fibers, causing them to experience the same symptoms as the exposed worker. These symptoms include chronic respiratory issues mesothelioma, lung cancer and lung cancer.
Many asbestos companies knew that asbestos was dangerous but they minimized the risks and refused to inform their employees or customers. In reality the Johns Manville Company rebuffed attempts by life insurance companies to put up warning signs on their buildings. The company's own studies, revealed asbestos' carcinogenicity in the 1930s.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was founded in 1971, but it didn't begin to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. At this point, doctors were trying to inform the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were generally successful. Lawsuits and news articles were launched to educate people, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a major issue for people across the country. Asbest is still present in homes and business even before the 1970s. This is why it's important for those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related illness to seek legal advice. A knowledgeable attorney will assist them in obtaining the justice they deserve. They will comprehend the complicated laws that govern this kind of case and can make sure that they get the most favorable outcome.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, brought the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. The suit claimed that the companies failed to warn of the dangers posed by their insulation products. This important case set the stage for thousands and tens of thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the future.
The majority of the asbestos litigation concerns those who worked in construction industries that used asbestos-containing products. These include electricians, plumbers and carpenters and drywall installers as well as roofers. Some of these workers now suffer from mesothelioma as well as lung cancer. Some of these workers are seeking compensation in the event that their loved ones have passed away.
Millions of dollars may be awarded in damages in a lawsuit against the maker of asbestos products. These funds are used to cover past and future medical costs loss of wages, pain and suffering. This money can also be used to pay for travel costs funeral and burial expenses, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced a number of companies into bankruptcy, and also created asbestos trust funds to pay victims. It has also placed an immense burden on federal and state courts. It has also consumed countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that stretched over many years. But, it was successful in exposing asbestos-related company executives who hid the asbestos facts for years. They were aware of the risks and pressured workers to hide their health issues.
After many years of trial and appeal, the court ruled in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based on the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for the harm caused asbestos lawsuit settlements to the consumer or end-user of its product when 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
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos-insulators such as Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory issues and thickening fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, brushed aside asbestos as a health risk. The truth would only be widely known in the 1960s, when more research into medical science connected asbestos exposure to respiratory illnesses like mesothelioma or asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for failing to warn about 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 found that the defendants were liable for warning.
The defendants argue that they did not commit any wrongdoing since they knew about asbestos's dangers well before 1968. Expert testimony suggests that asbestosis might not be appear until 15 to 20 years, or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If the experts are right, then the defendants could have been held liable for the injuries sustained by other workers who may be suffering from asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants argue that they shouldn't be held accountable for the mesothelioma that Borel contracted because it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing products. They ignore the evidence that was gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos' dangers for a long time and suppressed the information.
The 1970s saw a surge in asbestos-related lawsuits, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos claims filled the courts and a large number of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. In the wake of the litigation, numerous asbestos-related businesses went under and created trust funds to compensate victims of their asbestos-related ailments. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that the asbestos companies were responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. The asbestos industry was forced to changing their business practices. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are resolved today for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of several articles published in journals of scholarly research. He has also spoken on these subjects at various seminars and legal conferences. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has served on various committees that deal mesothelioma and asbestos as well as mass torts. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.
The firm charges a fee of 33 percent plus costs for the settlements it receives from its clients. It has obtained some of the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer 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 patients suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases.
Despite its success, the firm is being criticized for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and inflated statistics. The company has also been accused of pursuing fraud claims. In response to this the firm has launched an open defense fund and is looking for donations from corporations and individuals.
Another issue is the fact that many defendants are attacking the world-wide scientific consensus that asbestos, even at 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 support their claims.
Attorneys aren't just disputing the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but they are also looking at other aspects of cases. For example, they are arguing about the requirement for constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be eligible for compensation, the victim must actually have known about the dangers of asbestos. They also argue about the compensation ratios among various asbestos-related diseases.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that there is a huge public interest in awarding compensation to those who have suffered from mesothelioma and related diseases. They claim that the companies that made asbestos should have known about the risks and must be held accountable.