Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled through a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have been a major part of asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve a significant number of claims in one go.
The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that mine, mill or produce asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can compensate victims for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensation damages could include amount of money for suffering and pain, loss of earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos around the world surpassed 109,000 metric tonnes. The massive demand for asbestos was driven primarily by the need for sturdy and inexpensive construction materials to accommodate population growth. Growing demand for low-cost asbestos products, which were mass-produced, led to the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industry.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits with huge sums of cash. However, investigations and lawsuits found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers had committed many frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of many individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and influenced organizations Act (RICO).
In a Neoclassical building made of limestone located on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to swindle clients and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
He found, for example that in one instance an attorney claimed to jurors that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, but the evidence indicated a much greater range of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information and even made up evidence to get asbestos victims settlements.
Since since then other judges have also observed some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits however not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will lead to more accurate estimates of the amount asbestos victims owe companies.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases due to the negligence of businesses that manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not uncommon for victims to receive large amounts of compensation for their loss.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma after a period of 33 years working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries because they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to be successful and win awards and verdicts for victims.
Many companies were trying to limit their liability as asbestos litigation grew. This was done by paying "experts" who were not reputable to conduct research and write documents to justify their claims in court. They also employed their resources to to distort public perceptions of the facts about the health risks of asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits allow victims and their families to take on multiple defendants at one time instead of filing individual lawsuits against every company. While this strategy could be beneficial in certain instances, it could result in a lot confusion and waste of 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 responsible. They also would like to limit the types of damages that a juror may award. This is an important issue as it will impact the amount of money that victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases began appearing on the court docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was previously used in a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma centered on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
The mesothelioma latency time is long, meaning that patients don't show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma can be more difficult to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of its lengthy latency period. In addition, the companies who used asbestos typically covered up their use of the material because they knew it was a risk.
A few asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma suits. This allowed them to regroup under the supervision of a court and put funds aside to cover the current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to pay mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related illnesses.
This led defendants to seek legal decisions that will limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos material that was later 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 number of major asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these cases as well as other asbestos litigation major in New York. These consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were merged into one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits, and resulted in significant savings for businesses involved in litigation.
Another important development in asbestos litigation came with the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required the evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition by an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively squelched the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began to attack their adversaries attorneys who represent them. Largo asbestos lawsuit of this tactic is to make the plaintiffs look guilty. This tactic is that is designed to distract focus from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that followed.
This strategy has proven to be extremely efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consult an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you do not think you have mesothelioma-related cancer An experienced firm with the right resources can find evidence of your exposure and build a strong case.
In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a variety of legal claims. Workers exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos products. Then, those exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases, sued distributors of asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks who financed projects that used asbestos, and many other parties.
Texas was the scene of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos companies in Texas specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and bringing cases to court in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which became famous for its secret method of coaching clients to select particular defendants and filing cases with no regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was later rescinded by courts and legislative remedies were implemented that helped douse the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims deserve an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, which includes medical expenses. To ensure you get the compensation you are entitled, you should contact a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer will review your personal circumstances, determine whether you have a viable mesothelioma case and help you pursue justice against the asbestos companies that have harmed you.