Asbestos Lawsuit History
Since the 1980s many asbestos-producing employers and companies have been bankrupted, and victims are compensated through bankruptcy trust funds and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have claimed that their cases were the subject of suspicious 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 that attempted to limit liability.
Anna Pirskowski
Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related diseases was a well-known case. It was a significant case as it led to asbestos lawsuits being filed against several manufacturers. This led to an increase in claims from those diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other ailments. These lawsuits led the way to creation trust funds that were used by bankrupt companies to pay asbestos-related victims. These funds also permit asbestos victims and their family members to receive reimbursement for medical expenses and pain.
In addition to the many deaths resulting from asbestos exposure, people who are exposed to asbestos often bring it home to their families. In this case, the family members inhale the fibers which causes them to suffer from the same symptoms similar to those who were exposed. These symptoms include chronic respiratory ailments mesothelioma, lung cancer, and lung cancer.
Although many asbestos companies were aware that asbestos was dangerous however, they minimized the risks and refused to warn their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to allow life insurance companies to enter their premises to put up warning signs. Asbestos was identified as carcinogenic in the 1930s according to research conducted by Johns Manville.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was founded in 1971, but it did not start 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 mostly successful. The news media and lawsuits began to raise awareness however many asbestos-related companies resisted the call for stricter regulations.
Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned from the United States, the mesothelioma problem continues to be a major issue for people across the country. Asbest remains in homes and business, even those built before the 1970s. It is essential that those diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related illness get legal advice. A knowledgeable attorney can help them get the amount of compensation they are entitled to. They will be able understand the complicated laws that apply to this type case and ensure that they receive the best possible outcome.
Claude Tomplait
Claude Tomplait, diagnosed with asbestosis in the year 1966, filed the first lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he alleged that the manufacturers had failed to warn consumers about the dangers of their insulation products. This important case opened the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits that continue to be filed today.
Most asbestos lawsuits are brought by those who have worked in the construction industry and employed asbestos-containing materials. Carpenters, electricians, and plumbers are among those who have been affected. Some of these workers are suffering from lung cancer, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments. Many are also seeking compensation for the loss of their loved family members.
Millions of dollars may be awarded as damages in a suit against a manufacturer of asbestos products. These funds are used to cover the medical bills of the past and future as well as lost wages, pain and suffering. The money can also be used to cover travel expenses, funeral and burial expenses, and loss of companionship.
Asbestos litigation forced many companies to bankruptcy and established asbestos trust fund to pay victims. The litigation has also put a strain on the state and federal courts. Additionally it has consumed thousands of hours of attorneys and witnesses.
The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that lasted many decades. The asbestos litigation was a lengthy and costly process that stretched over years. However it was johns manville asbestos lawsuit successful in uncovering asbestos executives who had hid the truth about asbestos for many years. These executives knew about the dangers and pressured employees to not speak up about their health concerns.
After years of appeals, trial and court rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's ruling was in reference to the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts that states, "A manufacturer is liable for any injury suffered by consumers or users of his product if the product 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 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
Workers' compensation claims were filed by asbestos insulators such as Borel in the latter half of 1950s. They complained of respiratory ailments and a thickening of the fingertip tissue (called "finger clubbing"). But the asbestos industry downplayed the health risks of asbestos exposure. In the 1960s, more research in medicine began to connect asbestos with respiratory ailments like mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Borel sued asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers in 1969 for failing to warn about the risks associated with their products. He claimed he developed mesothelioma as a result of working with their insulation over a period of 33 years. The court found that the defendants owed a duty of warning.
The defendants argue that they didn't commit any crime because they knew about asbestos's dangers well before 1968. They point to expert testimony that asbestosis doesn't manifest its symptoms until fifteen twenty, twenty, or 25 years after the initial exposure to asbestos. If these experts are right and the defendants are found to be negligent, they could have been held accountable for the injuries of other workers who might be suffering from asbestosis before Borel.
In addition, the defendants argue that they should not be held responsible for Borel's mesothelioma because it was his decision to continue to work with asbestos-containing insulation. Kazan Law gathered evidence that proved that defendants' companies were aware of asbestos' risks and concealed the risk for decades.
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 a large number of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses. In response to the lawsuit asbestos-related companies went under. Trust funds were created to pay compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. As the litigation progressed it became apparent that asbestos-related companies were accountable to the extent of the harm caused by toxic materials. As a result, the asbestos industry was forced to change the way they conducted business. Today, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been resolved for millions of dollars.
Stanley Levy
Stanley Levy has written a number of articles that have been published in scholarly journals. He has also given talks on the subject at numerous seminars and legal conferences. He is a member of the American Bar Association and has been a member of various committees that deal mesothelioma, asbestos, and mass torts. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.
The firm charges 33 percent plus the cost of expenses for the compensation it receives from clients. It has won some of the biggest verdicts in asbestos litigation, including a $22,000,000 settlement for a mesothelioma sufferer who worked at a 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 this success, the firm is being criticized more frequently for its involvement in asbestos lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of propagating conspiracy theory, attacking the jury system, and inflated statistics. Additionally, the company has been accused of pursuing fraudulent claims. In response the firm has launched an open defense fund and is seeking donations from corporations and individuals.
Another issue is that a number of defendants are challenging the scientific consensus worldwide that asbestos, even at low levels, can cause mesothelioma. They have resorted to money paid by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who have published papers in journals of academics to back their arguments.
Attorneys are not only disputing the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, but are also focus on other aspects of cases. They argue, for instance regarding the constructive notification required to make an asbestos claim. They claim that the victim should have actually been aware of asbestos's dangers in order to receive compensation. They also argue over the proportion of compensation among various asbestos-related diseases.
The attorneys representing plaintiffs argue there is a substantial public interest in awarding compensation to those who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that the companies that produced asbestos should have been aware about the dangers and should be held accountable.