Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos lawsuits are handled by a complicated procedure. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a large role in consolidated asbestos trials in New York, which resolve several claims at one time.
Companies that produce hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. Detroit asbestos lawyers is particularly applicable to companies that mill, mine or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several manufacturers of asbestos insulation products failed to warn workers of the risks of inhaling this dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a variety of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damage can include a sum of money to ease pain and discomfort as well as lost earnings, medical expenses as well as property damage. Based on where you live the victim may also be awarded punitive damages in order to punish the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for many years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910 the annual production of asbestos in the world exceeded 109,000 metric tons. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the requirement for durable and affordable construction materials to accommodate population growth. The growing demand for cheap asbestos products that were mass-produced led to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the year 1980, asbestos companies were facing thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies failed, and others settled the lawsuits with large sums of money. However lawsuits and other investigations revealed a massive amount of corruption and fraud by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The lawsuits that followed resulted in convictions for a number of individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical building of limestone situated on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and rob bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.
For instance, he discovered that in one case, a lawyer told the jury that the client had only been exposed to Garlock's products, but the evidence showed an even greater scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers made up claims, concealed information, and even fabricated evidence to obtain asbestos victims the settlements they wanted.
Since then other judges have also observed some legal issues in asbestos lawsuits, but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and fraud in asbestos cases will lead to more accurate estimates of how much companies owe to asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Thousands of people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases because of the negligence of companies that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive significant compensation for their injuries.
The first asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from asbestosis and mesothelioma after working as an insulation worker for 33 years. The court found that the makers of asbestos-containing insulation were responsible for his injuries because they failed to inform him of the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling opens the way for asbestos lawsuits in the future to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
Many companies were trying to limit their liability as asbestos litigation increased. This was accomplished by paying "experts" who were not credible to do research and write documents to be used in court to support their arguments. They also used their resources to try to distort public perceptions of the real asbestos's health hazards.
Class action lawsuits are among of the most troubling trends when it comes to asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this tactic could be beneficial in certain situations, it can result in a lot confusion and wasted time for asbestos victims and their families. In addition, the courts have a long track record of rejecting asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree only manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held responsible. They also want to limit the types of damages that juries are able to give. This is an extremely important issue, since it will impact the amount of money an asbestos victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the latter half of the 1960s, mesothelioma cases started to increase on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure, a mineral that was previously used in a variety of construction materials. Workers with mesothelioma have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them.
The time it takes for mesothelioma to develop is lengthy, which means that people don't usually show symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related illnesses. Additionally, the businesses that used asbestos frequently concealed their use of the material because they knew that it was dangerous.
A few asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy because of the mesothelioma litigation suits. 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 diseases.
But this has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that could restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Some defendants, for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured, but were used in conjunction with asbestos material that was later 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 the chief counsel for these cases as well as other asbestos litigation in New York. These consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, helped reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings to the companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passage 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 reforms in law required evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or supposition by a hired gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of other similar reforms, effectively doused the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As the asbestos companies had no defenses to the lawsuits brought by victims they began to attack their opponents and the lawyers who represent them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a disingenuous tactic designed to divert attention from the fact that asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and the mesothelioma which followed.
This method has proven to be very efficient. People who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult an experienced firm as soon as is possible. Even if you do not believe you are mesothelioma-related cancer An expert firm with the right resources can locate evidence of exposure and help build a solid case.
In the early days of asbestos litigation, there was a wide range of legal claims brought by different litigants. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace who sued companies that mined and made asbestos-related products. Another class of litigants comprised those exposed at home or in public structures suing employers and property owners. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and various asbestos-related diseases sued distributors of asbestos-containing materials, manufacturers of protective gear and banks that funded asbestos projects, and many other parties.
Texas was the location of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms in Texas were specialized in bringing asbestos cases and bringing cases to court in huge numbers. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of instructing its clients to focus on 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 enacted which helped to stop the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, including medical treatment costs. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure you receive the compensation you are entitled to. A lawyer can analyze the circumstances of your case, determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.