How To Beat Your Boss On Asbestos Litigation Defense
Thornton asbestos lawsuit is widely recognized as a leading expert in asbestos litigation defense. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to speak at national conferences. They are also well-versed on the many issues that arise in defending asbestos cases.
Research has proved that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.
Statute of limitations
In the majority of personal injury claims statutes limit the time period after which a victim can make an action. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations varies by state and is different from other personal injury cases due to the fact that asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.
Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses and other asbestos-related illnesses, the statute of limitations clock starts on the date of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death cases, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason why the families of victims need to work as soon as they can with a reputable New York asbestos lawyer.
There are many aspects to take into consideration when making an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. The statute of limitations is the time limit at which the victim has to file a lawsuit. Failure to do so could result in the case being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies by state, and the laws differ greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.
In asbestos cases, defendants often employ the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They might argue that, for instance, plaintiffs should have been aware or knew about their exposure to asbestos and that they had the obligation of notifying their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma litigation, and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.
A defendant in an asbestos case could also claim that they didn't have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence available. For example it has been successfully made in California that the defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.
Generally, it is best to start the asbestos lawsuit in the state of the victim's home. In certain circumstances, it may make sense to make a claim in a state other than the victim's. This usually has something to be related to the location of the employer or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.
Bare Metal
The bare-metal defense is a strategy that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that, because their products left the factory as bare steel, they did not have a duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing materials later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating flange seals and flange seals. This defense is accepted in some jurisdictions, but not all.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule that manufacturers prefer and instead created an obligation for the manufacturer to notify customers if they know that their product is hazardous for its intended purpose. They have no reason to think that the users who purchase the product will realize this risk.
This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end of the road. First, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims that are founded on negligence or strict liability and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.
Plaintiffs will continue to seek a more expansive understanding of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in that claim was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines in the Texaco refinery which contained asbestos-containing components.
In a similar instance, a judge in Tennessee has stated that he will adopt a third view of the defense of bare metal. The plaintiff in the case was a Tennessee Eastman chemical plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after working on equipment that had been repaired or replaced by contractors of third party which included the Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges use the bare-metal defense in other cases.
Defendants' Experts
Asbestos lawsuits are complicated and require skilled attorneys who have a thorough knowledge of both legal and medical issues and access to top experts. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience in assisting clients with a variety of asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies in finding and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony in deposition and at trial.
Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals such as pathologists and radiologists who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of lung tissue typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist could also testify regarding symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a detailed description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an investigation of their tax social security and union records as well as job and employment details.
An forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be required to explain the source of the asbestos exposure. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed in the workplace and was instead brought home on workers' clothing or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).
Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to assess the financial losses incurred by victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to their disease and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to perform household chores a person is unable to perform.
It is important for defendants to challenge the expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. If they repeat their testimony, the experts may lose credibility with jurors.
In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the defendant's products. A judge is not likely to give summary judgment just because a defendant points out holes in the plaintiff's proof.
Trial
Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a meaningful discovery. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured in years. Thus, establishing the facts on which to create a case, will require a thorough examination of a person's entire employment history. This often involves a thorough examination of social security and tax records, union and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.
Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious ailments like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are caused by a disease other than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.
In the past, certain attorneys have employed this method to deny responsibility and obtain large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has grown, this approach has been generally rejected by the courts. This is especially true in federal courts, where judges regularly dismiss claims based on the absence of evidence.
As a result, an accurate assessment of each potential defendant is essential to a successful asbestos litigation defense. This includes evaluating the severity and duration of the illness and the extent of the exposure. For example a carpenter with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded higher damages than one who has only had asbestosis.
The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends suppliers, manufacturers contractors, distributors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have extensive experience in the role of National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel. They are frequently appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.
Asbestos cases can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation and we assist them to develop internal programs that can detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out more about how we can safeguard your company's interests.