10 Essentials About Asbestos Lawsuit History You Didn't Learn In School
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are handled in a complicated way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims at one time.
Companies that manufacture hazardous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies who mine, mill or produce 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. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensation damages for a wide range of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Arlington asbestos lawyer could include cash value for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on where you reside the victim may also be awarded punitive damages to punish the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite numerous warnings, many companies continued to use asbestos in a variety of products in the United States. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for sturdy and affordable construction materials to support the growth of population. The demand for cheap mass-produced products made from asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits by mesothelioma sufferers and other people suffering from asbestos-related illnesses. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt and others settled lawsuits for large sums of money. However, investigations and lawsuits revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers had committed many frauds and corrupt practices. The lawsuits that followed resulted in convictions for a number of 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 rob trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.
For example, he found that in one case, an attorney claimed that a jury his client was exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence showed an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys made up claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the settlements they wanted.
Since then, other judges have noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits however not to the extent 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
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments due to the negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts, and it's not uncommon for victims to receive substantial compensation for their loss.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. 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 opened the door for other asbestos lawsuits to win verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation increased. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write documents that would support their arguments in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the facts about the health risks of asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most disturbing 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 each company. While this strategy could be beneficial in certain situations, it could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. In addition the courts have a long history of denying asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Another legal strategy used by asbestos defendants is to seek out legal rulings that can assist them in limiting the extent of their liability. They are attempting to get judges to decide that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held accountable. They also want to limit the types of damages juries can decide to award. This is a significant issue because it will affect the amount of money victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases started to increase on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was a mineral previously used in a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma focused on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with an extended latency time, meaning people do not often show signs of the illness until decades after exposure to the material. This makes mesothelioma lawsuits more difficult to win than other asbestos-related illnesses. In addition, the companies who used asbestos often concealed their use of the substance because they knew it was a risk.
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 money aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related diseases.
This also led to an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured but were used together with asbestos material that was later purchased. This argument is well-executed 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 that were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were merged into one trial, slowed the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to companies involved in litigation.
Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made through the passage 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 suppositions made by an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, as well as the passage of similar reforms, effectively quelled the litigation raging.
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. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful method to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This method has proven to be extremely effective, and it is the reason why those who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should consult with an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you aren't sure you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a wide variety of legal claims filed by various litigants. 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. Later, people diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases suing companies that sell asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects that used asbestos, and many other parties.
Texas was the location of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in the state specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and bringing cases to court in huge numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of coaching its clients to target specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk, with no regard to accuracy. The courts eventually rebuked this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos lawsuits and instituted legislative remedies to stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation for their losses, including the cost of medical care. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure that you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer will review your particular situation, determine whether you have an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and help you seek justice against asbestos-related companies that have harmed you.