Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing employers and companies have gone bankrupt and the victims are paid through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported suspicious legal tactics in their cases.
A number of asbestos-related cases have been heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a notable case. Her death was significant because it triggered asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers, and led to an increase in claims from people who were diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma, or other diseases. These lawsuits led to trust funds created by the government which were used by bankrupt companies to compensate asbestos-related victims. Palatine asbestos lawyers permit asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses as well as pain.
The asbestos-effected workers often bring the substance home to their families. In this case, the family members breathe in the asbestos, causing them to suffer from the same ailments as the asbestos-exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues as well as 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 clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies into their premises to put up warning signs. The company's own studies, meanwhile, showed that asbestos was carcinogenic as early as the 1930s.
OSHA was founded in 1971. However, it was only able to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. At this point doctors were attempting to educate the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were mostly successful. The media and lawsuits helped raise awareness, however asbestos companies resisted demands for a more strict regulation.
Despite the fact that asbestos is banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a significant issue for individuals throughout the country. Asbest is still present in homes and business even before the 1970s. This is why it's essential for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related disease to seek legal help. An experienced lawyer will assist them in getting the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able understand the intricate laws that apply to this type case and will ensure that they get the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He then filed his first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers of products. The suit claimed that the companies didn't warn consumers about the dangers associated with their insulation products. This important case set the stage for tens and thousands of similar lawsuits to be filed in the future.
The majority of the asbestos litigation involves claims by people who worked in the construction industry that employed asbestos-containing products. This includes plumbers, electricians, carpenters and drywall installers as well as roofers. A few of these workers are suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other asbestos-related diseases. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved family members.
Millions of dollars can be awarded as damages in a lawsuit against a manufacturer of asbestos products. These funds can be used to pay for past and future medical costs loss of wages, suffering and pain. It can also be used to pay for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation has forced many businesses into bankruptcy and created asbestos trust funds to pay victims. It has also put a strain on state and federal courts. In addition, it has consumed countless hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and expensive process that spanned decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos business executives who had concealed the truth about asbestos for decades. They were aware of the dangers and pressured employees to conceal their health issues.
After years of appeals, trials and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's ruling was based on an edition of 1965 of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injuries to the consumer or user of his product when the product is sold in a defective condition unaccompanied by adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court following the verdict. 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
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos insulators like Borel in the late 1950s. They complained of respiratory problems and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos its health risks. The truth would only become widely known in the 1960s, when more research into medical science identified asbestos-related respiratory ailments such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the risks associated with their products could pose. He claimed that he developed mesothelioma and asbestosis 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 not commit any wrongdoing because they were aware of asbestos' dangers long before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis can not appear until 15 to 20 years, or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If these experts are correct they could have been responsible for injuries suffered by other workers who might have developed asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants also argue that they aren't responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma since it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing substances. Kazan Law gathered evidence that showed the defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' dangers and concealed the risk for decades.
Although the Claude Tomplait case was the first asbestos class action lawsuit in the 1970s, the decade of 1970 saw an explosion of asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos claims crowded the courts and thousands of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. In response to the litigation asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were created to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed, it became clear that asbestos-related companies were accountable to the extent of the harm caused by toxic 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 has written a number of articles that have been published in journals of academic research. He has also given talks on the subject at numerous legal seminars and conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association and has been a member of various committees dealing mesothelioma, asbestos, and mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm charges a 33 percent fee plus expenses on the settlements it receives from its clients. It has won some the biggest settlements in asbestos litigation history including the $22 million verdict for a mesothelioma patient who worked at an New York City steel plant. The firm represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard Plaintiffs and has filed claims on behalf of a multitude of people suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this however, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and inflating the statistics. In addition, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response to this the company has announced an open defense fund and is looking for donations from both corporations and individuals.
A second issue is that many defendants are against the consensus of science that asbestos is a cause of mesothelioma, even at very low levels. They have resorted to money paid by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" who have published papers in journals of academic research to support their arguments.
Attorneys aren't just arguing over the scientific consensus on asbestos, but also focus on other aspects of the cases. For example they are arguing over the necessity of a constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that to be qualified for compensation the victim must be aware of the dangers of asbestos. They also argue over the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related illnesses.
Lawyers for plaintiffs claim there is a substantial incentive to compensate people who have been affected by mesothelioma and related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the dangers and that they must be held accountable.