7 Simple Tips For Rolling With Your Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.
The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies who mine, mill or manufacture asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation manufacturers failed to warn workers of the risks of inhaling asbestos, a dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a variety of injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of monetary amount for pain and discomfort and lost earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. Based on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages in order to punish the company for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings throughout the years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The massive demand for asbestos was driven primarily by the need for durable and inexpensive building materials to keep pace with population growth. The demand for cheap, mass-produced products made of asbestos fueled the rapid growth of mining and manufacturing industries.
In the year 1980, asbestos companies were facing thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits with large sums of cash. However the lawsuits and other investigations have revealed an enormous amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's attorneys and asbestos companies. The subsequent litigation led to convictions for many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to fraud defendants and take money from bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.
He found, for example, that in one case an attorney claimed to a jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence showed a greater range of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys made up assertions, concealed information and even faked evidence to obtain asbestos victims the settlements they sought.
Other judges have since observed legal maneuvers that are questionable in asbestos cases, but not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will lead to more accurate estimates of how much companies owe to asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases because of the negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their losses.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in settlements or awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liability as asbestos litigation grew. This was done by paying "experts" who weren't credible enough to conduct research and produce papers to support their arguments in court. These companies also utilized their resources to influence public opinion about the truth regarding the health risks of asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most disturbing developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow victims to sue several defendants at once instead of filing separate lawsuits against each company. Thousand Oaks asbestos lawsuit , while it can be beneficial in certain cases, can create confusion and take away time from asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They are also trying to limit the types of damages that a jury can decide to award. This is a crucial issue because it will impact the amount a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases began appearing on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies used to use in a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with a long latency period, meaning people do not usually show symptoms of the disease until many years after exposure to the material. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related ailments. Additionally, the businesses who used asbestos often concealed their use of the substance because they knew it was dangerous.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize themselves in a court-supervised proceeding and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville put aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
However, this has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. This argument is well illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A series of large asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that occurred in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were merged into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to companies involved in litigation.
Another key development in asbestos litigation came with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than speculation or supposition by an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, along with the passage of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively squelched the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As the asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits brought by victims they began to attack their adversaries the lawyers who represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a dishonest method to distract attention from the fact asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This strategy has proven to be extremely efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should seek out a reputable firm as soon as is possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can find evidence and build a strong claim.
In the beginning, asbestos litigation was characterized by a wide range of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos products. In the second, those exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases suing suppliers of asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks who financed projects using asbestos and numerous other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos companies in Texas were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and bringing them to court in large numbers. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of educating its clients to focus on particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk, with little regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was later rescinded by the courts and legislative remedies were enacted that slowed the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including for medical treatment costs. Contact a reputable law firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure that you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can review your individual circumstances, determine whether you have a mesothelioma claim that is viable and help you pursue justice against asbestos companies that harmed you.