Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, many asbestos-producing employers and companies have declared bankruptcy. Victims are compensated via trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have complained about suspicious legal actions in their cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard several asbestos-related cases. The court has handled cases involving settlements for class actions that sought to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
In the mid-1900s, a lady named Anna Pirskowski suffered from asbestos-related diseases and passed away. Her death was significant because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against a variety of manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims from patients diagnosed with lung cancer, mesothelioma or other ailments. The lawsuits against these companies led to the creation of trust funds, which were utilized by companies that have gone bankrupt to pay for asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for medical expenses and suffering.
People who have been exposed to asbestos frequently bring the asbestos-containing material home to their families. If this happens, family members inhale the fibers which causes them to experience the same symptoms as the asbestos-exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory problems, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.
While many asbestos companies knew asbestos was a risk, they downplayed the risks and did not inform their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies to enter their buildings to install warning signs. The company's own research revealed asbestos's carcinogenic properties in the 1930s.
OSHA was founded in 1971 but began to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. By the time it was formed, doctors and health experts were already trying to warn the public to the dangers of asbestos. These efforts were generally successful. Lawsuits and news articles raised awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulation.
Despite the fact asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue remains a major concern for people across the nation. This is due to asbestos continuing to be present in 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 another asbestos-related disease to seek legal advice. A knowledgeable attorney can assist them in obtaining the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able to comprehend the intricate laws that apply to this kind of case and make sure they receive the most favorable result.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers had failed to warn 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 asbestos litigation involves claims by people who worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. This includes electricians, plumbers, carpenters, plumbers as well as drywall installers and roofers. Some of these workers suffer from mesothelioma and lung cancer. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of loved ones.
Millions of dollars could be awarded in damages in a lawsuit against the manufacturer of asbestos-related products. These funds are used to cover the medical bills of the past and future loss of wages, suffering and pain. It can also be used to pay for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation forced many companies into bankruptcy, and also created an asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. The litigation has also put a strain on federal and state courts. Additionally it has consumed thousands of hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a long and expensive process that spanned decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos company executives who hid the asbestos truth for decades. They were aware of the risks and pressured employees to conceal their health issues.
After years of appeal and trial and appeal, the court decided in favor of Tomplait. The court's decision was based on an edition of 1965 of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injuries to consumers or users of his product if the product is sold in a defective state without adequate warning."
Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court following the verdict. However, San Marcos asbestos lawyer . Watson died before the court could make her final award. Kazan Law offered to appeal the Appellate Court decision to the California Supreme Court.
Clarence Borel
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos insulators like Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory issues and thickening fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos as a health risk. In the 1960s, more medical research began to link asbestos with respiratory ailments like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation materials for not warning about the risks of their products. He claimed he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestosis as a result of working with their insulation over a period of 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants had a duty to warn.
The defendants argue that they did not infringe their duty to inform because they knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with asbestos well before 1968. They cite expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't show its symptoms until fifteen, twenty, or even 25 years after the initial exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right the defendants could be liable for injuries that other workers might have developed asbestosis before Borel.
The defendants also argue that they aren't accountable for the mesothelioma that Borel contracted, as it was his decision to continue working with asbestos-containing products. However, they ignore the evidence that was gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' companies knew of asbestos' dangers for a long time and suppressed the risk information.
The 1970s saw a rise in asbestos-related litigation, even though the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and a multitude of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. In response to the lawsuit asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were established to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that asbestos companies were accountable for the harm caused by their harmful products. Consequently the asbestos industry was forced into a change in how they operated. Today, a number of asbestos-related lawsuits have been resolved for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy is the author of a number articles that were published in scholarly journals. He has also given talks on these topics at a number of legal seminars and conferences. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has been on numerous committees dealing mesothelioma, asbestos, and mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg is a representation firm for more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the country.
The firm charges 33 percent plus expenses for any compensation it receives for clients. It has secured some of the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22 million award 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 patients suffering from mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite its successes, the firm has been subject to criticism for its involvement in asbestos litigation. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theories, sabotaging the jury system, and inflated statistics. In addition, the company has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response to this the firm has launched an open defense fund and is seeking 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 low levels can cause mesothelioma. They have used the funds provided by asbestos companies to hire "experts" to publish papers in academic journals that support their arguments.
In addition to arguing about the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, attorneys are focused on other aspects of the cases. For example, they are arguing about the requirement for constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim should have had actual knowledge of asbestos's dangers in order to receive compensation. They also argue over the compensation ratios among various asbestos-related diseases.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial public interest in granting compensation to those who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They claim that the companies that created asbestos ought to have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.
