Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing companies and employers have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are paid through bankruptcy trust funds and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported that their cases were the subject of suspect legal maneuvering.
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard a number of asbestos-related cases. The court has dealt with cases involving settlements for class actions that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related illnesses, was a prominent case. Her death was significant because it triggered asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers and triggered an increase in claims by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer or other illnesses. These lawsuits led the way to trust funds being created which were used by banksrupt companies to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases. These funds have also allowed asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for their medical expenses as well as pain and suffering.
In addition to the numerous deaths associated with asbestos exposure, workers who are exposed to the material often bring it home to their families. In this case, the family members inhale the fibers and suffer from the same symptoms as the asbestos-exposed worker. These symptoms include chronic respiratory problems, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Although many asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous however, they minimized the risks and refused to warn their employees or clients. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies to enter their buildings to place warning signs. Asbestos was discovered to be carcinogenic in the 1930s according to research conducted by Johns Manville.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in 1971, however, it did not begin to regulate asbestos until the 1970s. By this time, doctors were trying to inform the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were largely successful. News articles and lawsuits started to increase awareness, but many asbestos firms resisted calls for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact asbestos is banned in the United States, the mesothelioma issue is still an issue for many across the country. This is because asbestos continues to be present in businesses and homes even in those that were built prior to the 1970s. This is why it's essential for individuals who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or an 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 complicated laws that apply to this type case and ensure that they receive the most favorable outcome.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in 1966, brought the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed 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 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, drywall installers, and roofers. A few of these workers are suffering from mesothelioma, cancer of the lung and other asbestos-related ailments. Some are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved family members.
Millions of dollars can be awarded as damages in a suit against the manufacturer of asbestos-related products. The money is used to pay for the future and past medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. This money can also be used to pay for travel expenses funeral and burial expenses, and loss companionship.
Asbestos litigation forced many companies to bankruptcy and established asbestos trust funds to compensate victims. The litigation has also put a strain on the state and federal courts. It has also consumed many hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took several decades. However, it was ultimately successful in exposing asbestos business executives who hid the asbestos facts for years. They were aware of the dangers and pushed employees to conceal their health issues.
After years of trial, appeal and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's ruling was taken from an edition of 1965 of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for injury to consumers or users of his product if the product is sold in a defective condition not accompanied by adequate warning."
Following the decision the defendants were required to pay the widow of Tomplait, Jacqueline Watson. However, Ms. Watson died before the court could make her final verdict. 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 such as Borel were starting to complain of breathing problems and thickening of their fingertip tissue, which was referred to as "finger clubbing." asbestos exposure lawsuit They filed claims for workers' compensation. However, asbestos companies hid the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. In the 1960s, more medical research began to connect asbestos with respiratory illnesses 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 developed mesothelioma and asbestosis as the result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled that the defendants were required to warn.
The defendants claim that they did not breach their duty to inform because they were aware or ought to be aware about the dangers posed by asbestos well before 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis can not develop until 15 to 20, or even 25 years after exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right and the defendants are found to be negligent, they could have been held responsible for the injuries sustained by other workers who might have been affected by asbestosis earlier than Borel.
In addition, the defendants argue that they should not be held accountable for Borel's mesothelioma because it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing insulation. However, they ignore the evidence gathered by Kazan Law which showed that the defendants' businesses were aware about asbestos's dangers for decades and suppressed this information.
Although the Claude Tomplait case was the first asbestos class action lawsuit, the 1970s saw an explosion of asbestos-related lawsuits. Asbestos claims filled the courts, and thousands of workers developed asbestos-related diseases. In response to the litigation, asbestos-related businesses went bankrupt. Trust funds were established to compensate asbestos-related illness victims. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that the asbestos companies were accountable for the damages caused by their harmful products. As a result, the asbestos industry was forced into a change in the way they conducted business. Many asbestos-related lawsuits are settled today for millions dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in journals of scholarly research. He has also given talks on these topics at various seminars and legal conferences. He is an active member of the American Bar Association and has been on numerous committees dealing mesothelioma and asbestos as well as mass torts. His firm, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, represents more than 500 asbestos plaintiffs across the nation.
The firm is charged a fee of 33 percent plus expenses on compensations it obtains for its clients. It has obtained some of the largest 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 mesothelioma patients or other asbestos-related illnesses.
Despite this achievement, the company is now facing increased criticism over its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theory, attacking the jury system, and inflating statistics. In addition, the firm has been accused of making fraudulent claims. In response the company has announced an open defense fund and is seeking donations from both corporations and individuals.
Another issue is the fact that a number of defendants are challenging the scientific consensus worldwide that asbestos, even at low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have used the money provided by the asbestos industry to hire "experts" who published papers in journals of academics to support their arguments.
In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus on asbestos, attorneys are focused on other aspects of the case. For example they are fighting over the necessity of a constructive notice to file an asbestos claim. They argue that the victim should have had actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos in order to receive compensation. They also debate the compensation ratios of various asbestos-related illnesses.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that there is a huge public interest in granting damages to compensate people who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should be aware of the risks, and must be held accountable.