30 Inspirational Quotes On Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled through an intricate procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve many claims at once.
The law requires companies that manufacture dangerous products to inform consumers of the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that mill, mine, or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing in this dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include cash value for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. In the case of a area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages to punish companies for their actions.
Despite Springdale asbestos lawyers throughout the years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos around the world was more than 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for sturdy and cheap building materials to support the growth of population. The demand for low-cost manufactured products made of asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies failed, and others settled the lawsuits with large sums of money. But lawsuits and investigations found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers had committed many frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical building of limestone situated on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to swindle clients and rob bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
He found, for example in one instance, a lawyer claimed to a jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a broader scope of exposure. Hodges also found that lawyers used false claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to gain asbestos victims the compensation they wanted.
Since since then, other judges have noted the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits, but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more precise estimates of the amount companies owe 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 who manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive significant compensation for their injuries.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after a period of 33 years working as an insulation worker. The court held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries because they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened up the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in settlements or awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation increased. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who weren't credible enough to conduct research and write papers that would be used in court to support their arguments. These companies also used their resources to try and alter the public's perception of the truth about asbestos's health risks.
One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims bring suit against multiple defendants at one time instead of filing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it may be helpful in certain circumstances, it can cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.
Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that help them limit the scope of their liability. They are attempting to get judges to accept that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also want to limit the types of damages that juries can decide to award. This is a very important issue because it will affect the amount a victim receives in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma cases increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was once used in many construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with long periods of latency that means that people don't usually show symptoms of the illness until decades after exposure to the material. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. Asbestos is a hazardous material and companies that make use of it frequently cover up their use.
The litigation firestorm over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a number of asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize themselves in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put money aside for current and future asbestos-related obligations. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings which could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured, but were used together with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. The British case of Lubbe v Cape Plc (2000, UKHL 41) is a good illustration of this argument.
In the 1980s and into the 1990s, New York was home to a variety of significant asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits, and also provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passing of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was another significant development in asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition by an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, as well as the passage of similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against the lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began attacking their adversaries lawyers representing them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful strategy to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This method has proven to be very efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult an experienced 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 early days of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by different types of litigants. First, there were workers exposed at work suing businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos-related products. Another class of litigants included those exposed at the home or in public buildings suing property owners and employers. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, sued companies that sell asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects that used asbestos, and numerous other parties.
Texas was the location of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies were experts in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and fomenting them in huge numbers. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of coaching its clients to target specific defendants and filing cases in bulk, with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies that helped stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including for the cost of medical treatment. To ensure that you get the compensation you have a right to, consult with an experienced firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as soon as possible. A lawyer will review your personal circumstances, determine whether you have an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and help you seek justice against the asbestos firms that hurt you.