10-Pinterest Accounts You Should Follow About Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have been a key part of asbestos-related trials that are consolidated in New York that resolve a number of claims all at one time.
The law requires companies that produce dangerous products to inform consumers of the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies that mill, mine or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can compensate victims for a variety of injuries resulting from asbestos exposure. Compensatory damages can include a cash value for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on where you live, victims can also receive punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongful actions.
Despite warnings for many years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 metric tons. The massive demand for asbestos was driven primarily by the requirement for durable and affordable building materials to accommodate population growth. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products contributed to the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were battling thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos diseases. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits using large sums of cash. However, lawsuits and other investigations showed a huge amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's lawyers and asbestos companies. The litigation that followed led to convictions for many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
In a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme used by lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation decision" changed the course of asbestos lawsuits.
For instance, he found that in one case, the lawyer claimed to the jury that the client had only been exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence suggested an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, hid information, and even made up evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.
Other judges have also noted dubious legal maneuvering in asbestos cases, although not on the scale of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos claims will result in more accurate estimations of how much asbestos victims owe companies.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments due to the negligence of companies who produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. Victims often receive substantial compensation.
The first asbestos attorney lawsuit to get a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court found that the makers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries due to the fact that they did not inform him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits from other companies to win verdicts and awards for victims.
While asbestos litigation was growing, many of the companies involved in the cases were trying to find ways to reduce their liability. They did this by hiring shady "experts" to conduct research and publish papers that would assist them to make their arguments in the courtroom. They also used their resources to try to influence public perceptions of the truth about the asbestos's health risks.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most disturbing 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. This tactic, while it can be beneficial in certain situations, it can create confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos-related class action lawsuits as a result of cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants are also using a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They are also trying to limit the types of damages a jury can give. This is a crucial issue as it will impact the amount of money that a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma lawsuits increased in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral many companies once used in a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people suffering from mesothelioma focused on the companies responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
The mesothelioma latency time is long, which means that people don't usually show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related illnesses because of its lengthy period of latency. Additionally, the companies that used asbestos frequently did not disclose their use of the substance because they knew it was dangerous.
Many asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to reform 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 sufferers and other asbestos-related illnesses.
This prompted defendants to seek legal decisions that would limit their liability for asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example have tried to claim that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured but were used in conjunction with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. This argument is clearly illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
In the 1980s and 1990s, New York was home to a variety of significant asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as leading counsel for these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.
Another important change in asbestos litigation occurred through the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in a lawsuit involving asbestos be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than on conjecture or supposition from a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passage of similar reforms to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims they began to attack their adversaries and the lawyers they represent. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous intended to deflect focus from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma which followed.
This strategy has been very effective, and it is the reason people who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should seek out an experienced firm as soon as possible. Even if you aren't sure you're suffering from mesothelioma experienced firm can find evidence and build a strong claim.
In the beginning of asbestos litigation there was a broad range of legal claims brought by various litigants. Workers who were exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos products. Then, those exposed in public or private buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against suppliers of asbestos-containing products and manufacturers of protective equipment as well as banks that financed asbestos projects, and many other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation was in Texas. Asbestos firms in Texas specialized in fomenting asbestos cases and taking cases to court in huge numbers. Baron & Budd was one of these firms. It became famous for its unique method of coaching clients to target particular defendants and filing cases with no regard for accuracy. The courts eventually rebuked this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies that helped to stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, which includes medical expenses. To ensure you receive the compensation to which you have a right to, consult with an experienced firm that specializes in asbestos lawyer litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case, determine if you have a valid mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice.