7 Simple Strategies To Completely Rocking Your Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled by a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in asbestos trials that have been consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims at once.
Companies that manufacture dangerous products are legally required to warn consumers about 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 filed by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers failed to warn workers of the risks of inhaling asbestos, a dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits may award victims compensation for different injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include monetary value for suffering and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Based on the area of jurisdiction, victims could be awarded punitive damages meant to punish companies for their wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for many years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos across the world was more than 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven by a need for cheap and durable construction materials to meet the increasing population. The demand for cheap, mass-produced products made of asbestos was a major factor in the rapid growth of the manufacturing and mining industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos lawyer producers faced thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma patients as well as others suffering from asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies were forced to go bankrupt and others settled lawsuits for large sums of money. However, investigations and lawsuits found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers had engaged in a large amount of fraud and corrupt practices. The litigation 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 defraud clients and drain trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.
Hodges discovered, for instance, that in one case the lawyer told jurors that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a broader scope of exposure. Hodges discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information and even made up evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.
Since since then, other judges have noted some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits, but not as much as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will lead to more precise estimates of the amount companies owe asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related ailments due to the negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos suits have been filed in federal and state courts. Victims often receive a substantial amount of compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found that the producers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries due to the fact that they failed to warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and ending in awards or verdicts for victims.
While asbestos litigation was growing, many of the companies involved in the litigation were trying to find ways to reduce their liability. This was done by paying "experts" who were not reputable to conduct research and write papers that could support their arguments in court. They also employed their resources to to influence public perceptions of the facts about the asbestos lawyer's health risks.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most troubling trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against every company. While this strategy could be beneficial in certain instances, it could lead to a lot of confusion and time wastage for asbestos victims and their families. 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 legal rulings that can aid them in limiting the scope of their liability. They are trying to get judges to accept that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that a juror may award. This is a crucial issue because it will affect the amount of money that the victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The mesothelioma-related lawsuits began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral that many companies once used in various construction materials. Patients with mesothelioma filed lawsuits against companies who exposed them to asbestos.
The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is long, meaning that patients don't show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of this long period of latency. Asbestos is a dangerous material and businesses that use it often conceal their use.
The litigation firestorm over mesothelioma lawsuits led to a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize themselves in a court-supervised proceeding and put funds aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients as well as other asbestos-related diseases.
However, this also led to an attempt by defendants to get legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. This argument is well-executed in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A series of large consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials which occurred in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these trials and other major asbestos litigation in New York. These trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, helped reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passing of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was an important development in asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than conjecture or supposition from an expert witness hired by the government. These laws, and the passage of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively squelched the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out of defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began attacking their opponents attorneys who represent them. The purpose of this tactic is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a deceitful tactic to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This method has proven to be very efficient. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you aren't sure you have mesothelioma, an expert firm will be able to find evidence to support a claim.
In the beginning asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued firms that mined or made asbestos products. A second group of litigants comprised those exposed at home or in public buildings suing employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against asbestos-containing material distributors and manufacturers of protective gear and banks that funded asbestos projects, and numerous other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation occurred in Texas. Asbestos companies in Texas specialized in fomenting asbestos lawyer cases and taking the cases to court in large numbers. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was known for its secret method of coaching its clients to target particular defendants, and filing cases in bulk 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 can claim fair compensation, including for medical treatment costs. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you have a right to, contact a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can analyze the facts of your case and determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and assist you in pursuing justice.