11 "Faux Pas" That Are Actually Okay To Use With Your Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are dealt with in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have been a major part of asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve several claims at once.
Companies that manufacture hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies who manufacture, mill or mine asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The First Case
One of the earliest asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by an employee of a construction company named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of breathing asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits may compensate victims for various injuries that result from asbestos exposure. Compensatory damages may include cash value for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on where you live, victims can also receive punitive damages to reprimand the company for their wrongful actions.
Despite years of warnings, many companies continued to employ asbestos in a range of products throughout the United States. In 1910, the world's annual production of asbestos exceeded 109,000 tonnes. The massive consumption of asbestos was fueled by a need for cheap and durable construction materials to meet the increasing population. Increasing demand for inexpensive asbestos products, which were mass-produced, led to the rapid expansion of the mining and manufacturing industry.
In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers were facing thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies declared bankruptcy, while others settled lawsuits using large amounts of cash. But lawsuits and investigations revealed that asbestos-related companies and plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing many frauds and corrupt practices. The resultant litigation led to the conviction of 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 drain trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the landscape of asbestos lawsuits.
For instance, he found that in one case a lawyer told the jury that the client was exposed to Garlock's products but the evidence pointed to an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even invented evidence to obtain asbestos victims the compensation they were seeking.
Since the time, other judges have noted some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits but not in the manner of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe 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 who manufactured and sold asbestos products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive substantial compensation for their losses.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after a period of 33 years working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries as they failed to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling could open the possibility of future asbestos lawsuits being successful and resulting in settlements or awards for victims.
Many companies were seeking ways to reduce their liability as asbestos litigation grew. They did this by hiring suspicious "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would assist them to present their arguments in court. These companies also used their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth regarding asbestos's health hazards.
One of the most disturbing developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit the families of victims to sue multiple defendants at once instead of pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. This method, though it could be beneficial in certain situations, it can create confusion and waste time for asbestos victims. The courts have also ruled against asbestos-related class action lawsuits as a result of cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only producers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages a judge can award. This is a significant issue as it will impact the amount of money a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The mesothelioma-related lawsuits began to increase in the latter half of the 1960s. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos which was a mineral once used in many construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers filed lawsuits against companies who exposed them to asbestos.
The mesothelioma latency time is long, meaning that people don't usually develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. Additionally, the businesses that used asbestos frequently concealed their use of the substance because they knew that it was dangerous.
Many asbestos-related firms declared bankruptcy as a result of the mesothelioma litigation lawsuits. This allowed them to reorganize under the supervision of a court and put money aside to cover current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases.
But this has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that could limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. For instance, some defendants have attempted to argue that their products weren't made from asbestos-containing materials, but were simply used in conjunction with asbestos-containing materials that were later purchased by the defendants. asbestos lawsuit history is well 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 which took place in New York in the 1980s and the 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims into one trial, reduced the volume of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made through the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These reforms in law required that the evidence in asbestos lawsuits be based on peer-reviewed scientific research, rather than on conjecture and supposition from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, and the passing of other reforms that are similar to them, effectively put out the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began to attack their opponents attorneys who represent them. The goal of this strategy is to make the plaintiffs appear guilty. This tactic is designed to divert attention away from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that followed.
This strategy has been very efficient, and that is why people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should speak with a reputable firm as soon as they can. Even if there is no evidence to suggest that you have mesothelioma experienced firm can provide evidence to support a claim.
In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. Then, those exposed in private or public buildings sued employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases suing companies that sell asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects using asbestos and many other parties.
Texas was the location of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in taking asbestos cases to court and bringing them to trial in huge numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was known for its secret method of coaching its clients to focus on specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually rebuked this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and enacted legislative remedies that helped quell the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims need fair compensation for their losses, which includes medical expenses. To ensure you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, you should contact a reputable firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as soon as possible. A lawyer can review the circumstances of your case, determine if you have a valid mesothelioma claim and help you pursue justice.