10 Facts About Asbestos Lawsuit History That Will Instantly Get You Into A Great Mood
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled through a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York that resolve a variety of claims all at once.
The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies that mine, mill or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a variety of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. The compensation can consist of a monetary amount to ease pain and discomfort and loss of earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on where you live the victim may also be awarded punitive damages in order to punish the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos in the world exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for durable and cheap building materials to keep pace with population growth. Increasing demand for inexpensive, mass-produced asbestos products contributed to the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits with large sums of cash. However, investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos companies and plaintiff's lawyers had committed a large amount of fraud and corrupt practices. The subsequent litigation led to convictions for many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical structure of limestone on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to swindle clients and drain trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
Hodges found, for instance, that in one case an attorney claimed to a jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence indicated a much broader scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers fabricated claims, concealed information, and even fabricated proof to secure asbestos victims' settlements.
Since since then other judges have also observed some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits however not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe to asbestos victims.
The Second Case
The negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos products has resulted in the emergence mesothelioma among thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive substantial compensation for their losses.
The first asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from asbestosis and mesothelioma while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court held asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries, because they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits being successful and ending in settlements or awards for victims.
While asbestos litigation was growing in the industry, many of the companies involved in the cases were trying to find ways to reduce their liability. They did this by paying shady "experts" to conduct research and publish papers that would help them make their arguments in the courtroom. These companies were also using their resources to to influence public perceptions of the real asbestos's health hazards.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit victims to bring suit against multiple defendants at one time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this approach can be beneficial in certain situations, it can result in a lot confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. 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 get judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They also are trying to limit the types of damages juries can award. This is an important issue as it will impact the amount of money the victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the late 1960s mesothelioma cases began appearing on the courts' docket. The disease develops after exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies used to make various construction materials. The lawsuits brought by those suffering from mesothelioma centered on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
The mesothelioma latency time is long, meaning that patients don't exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of its lengthy period of latency. Asbestos is a dangerous material and businesses that use it frequently cover up their use.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a variety asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, which allowed them to reorganize in a court-supervised proceeding and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
This prompted defendants to seek legal rulings which could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Clearwater asbestos attorneys , for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured, but were used in conjunction with asbestos material that was later purchased. This argument is clearly illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A string of large-scale asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials which took place in New York in the 1980s and the 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigations that were major in New York. These trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.
Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required that the evidence used in an asbestos lawsuit be based on peer-reviewed scientific research rather than based on speculation and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively squelched the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their adversaries and the lawyers they represent. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This tactic is that is designed to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and the mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
This method has proven to be very effective. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you do not think you have mesothelioma An experienced firm with the right resources can locate evidence of your exposure and help build a solid case.
In the beginning asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. First, there were workers exposed in the workplace suing businesses that mined and manufactured asbestos-related products. Second, those who were exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related illnesses, sue suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using asbestos, and numerous other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms were specialized in bringing asbestos cases to court and provoking them in huge numbers. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was known for its secret method of educating its clients to target specific defendants and filing cases in bulk, with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disapproved of this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and enacted legislative remedies to stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including medical treatment costs. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, you should contact a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as soon as possible. A lawyer can review the facts of your case and determine if there is an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.