10 Essentials About Asbestos Lawsuit History You Didn't Learn In School
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are handled in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York that resolve a number of claims all at one time.
The law requires companies that produce hazardous products to warn consumers of the dangers. This is particularly applicable to companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. Borel claimed that asbestos insulation manufacturers did not warn workers of the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits may compensate victims for various injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may 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 in order to punish the company for their wrongful actions.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers continued to use asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 metric tons. This massive consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for durable and inexpensive construction materials in order to keep pace with population growth. The demand for cheap manufactured products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers were faced with thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt, and others settled the lawsuits for large sums of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations revealed a massive amount of fraud and corruption by plaintiff's attorneys and asbestos companies. The resulting litigation led to the convictions of many individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).
In a limestone building that was built in the Neoclassical style on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to fraudulently defraud defendants and to drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.
Hodges found, for instance that in one instance the lawyer told a jury that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a broader scope of exposure. Hodges also found that attorneys created false claims, concealed information, and even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the settlements they were seeking.
Since the time other judges have also noted the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits but not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will lead to more precise estimates of the amount companies owe to asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses due to the negligence of companies who produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos suits have been filed both in federal and state courts. Victims typically receive a substantial amount of compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. Redondo Beach asbestos lawyer was diagnosed with mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation are liable for his injuries since they failed to warn him about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in settlements or awards for victims.
While asbestos litigation was on the rise in the industry, many of the companies involved in the litigation were trying to find ways to limit their liability. They did this by paying untruthful "experts" to conduct research and publish papers that would assist them to make their arguments in court. These companies were also using their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the truth about the asbestos's health hazards.
One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits let victims pursue multiple defendants at the same time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it may be helpful in certain circumstances, it can cause confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. Additionally, the courts have a long history of refusing asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Asbestos defendants also use a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held liable. They are also trying to limit the types of damages juries can decide to award. This is a significant issue since it could affect the amount of money victims will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos which was a mineral previously used in a variety of construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.
The mesothelioma latency time is lengthy, which means that patients don't typically develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related diseases due to its long latency period. Additionally, the businesses who used asbestos typically did not disclose their use of the substance because they knew it was a risk.
The raging litigation over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put funds aside for future 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 rulings that could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have attempted to argue that their products were not made with asbestos-containing materials but were merely used in conjunction with asbestos materials that were subsequently purchased by defendants. This argument is clearly illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A string of large-scale asbestos trials, consolidated into the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, were held in New York in the 1980s and the 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the lead counsel in these cases as well as other asbestos litigation major in New York. These trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into one trial, slowed the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings for companies involved in litigation.
In 2005, the passing of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an important step in the asbestos litigation. These legal reforms required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, as well as the passing of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out defenses against the lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began attacking their opponents lawyers representing them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a shady tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This method has proven to be extremely efficient, and that is the reason people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should speak with a reputable firm as soon as they can. Even if you don't believe you have mesothelioma An experienced firm with the appropriate resources can locate evidence of your exposure and help build a solid case.
In the early days asbestos litigation was characterized by a variety of legal claims. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace who sued companies that mined and made asbestos products. A second group of litigants included those exposed at home or in public buildings suing employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses sued distributors of asbestos-containing materials and manufacturers of protective gear, banks that financed asbestos projects, and numerous other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos firms in the state were experts in promoting asbestos cases and bringing cases to court in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms, which became famous for its unique method of instructing clients to select specific defendants and to file cases with little regard for accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was eventually rebuked by the courts and legislative remedies were implemented that helped douse the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims need an equitable amount of compensation for their losses, which includes medical costs. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure that you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can review your individual circumstances and determine if you're in an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos firms that hurt you.