There's A Reason Why The Most Common Asbestos Lawsuit History Debate It's Not As Black And White As You Might Think
Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos suits are handled in a complex way. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a major role in consolidated trials of asbestos in New York that resolve a number of claims at once.
Manufacturers of hazardous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially relevant to companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing materials.
The First Case
One of the first asbestos lawsuits ever filed was brought by a construction worker named Clarence Borel. Borel claimed asbestos insulation companies failed to warn workers about the dangers of inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensation can be in the form of sum of money for discomfort and pain and lost earnings, medical costs as well as property damage. Depending on where you live, victims can also receive punitive damages to reprimand the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite warnings for years, many manufacturers in the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos surpassed 109,000 tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was driven primarily by the need for durable and affordable construction materials to accommodate population growth. Growing demand for low-cost asbestos products that were mass-produced led to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers were faced with thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related diseases. Lafayette asbestos lawsuits declared bankruptcy while others settled lawsuits with huge amounts of cash. However, lawsuits and other investigations have revealed a huge amount of corruption and fraud by plaintiff's lawyers and asbestos companies. The resultant litigation led to the convictions of a variety of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).
In a limestone building that was built in the Neoclassical style located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme of lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" drastically changed the face of asbestos litigation.
For instance, he discovered that in one case, a lawyer told the jury that his client was exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence pointed to the possibility of a wider range of exposure. Hodges also found that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even faked evidence to obtain asbestos victims the compensation they sought.
Other judges have also discovered legal evasions in asbestos cases, although not as extensive as the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse 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 due to the negligence of businesses that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed both in state and federal courts. Victims often receive substantial compensation.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to receive a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma after 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation producers responsible for his injuries, because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opened the door for asbestos lawsuits in the future to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
While asbestos litigation was growing and gaining momentum, the businesses involved in the cases were looking for ways to reduce their liability. They did this by hiring suspicious "experts" to conduct research and write papers that would help them argue their case in court. They also utilized their resources to try and alter the public's perception of 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 let victims bring suit against multiple defendants at one time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this tactic may be helpful in some instances, it could result in a lot confusion and waste of time for asbestos victims and their families. Additionally the courts have a long track record of denying asbestos class action lawsuits. cases.
Another legal method used by asbestos defendants is to seek legal rulings that can assist them in limiting the scope of their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products can be held responsible. They also are trying to limit the types of damages a jury can give. This is an extremely important issue, as it will affect the amount the victim is awarded in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases started to increase on the court docket. The disease is caused by exposure to asbestos, a mineral many companies used to make various construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people who suffer from mesothelioma focus on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.
The latency period for mesothelioma is lengthy, which means that patients don't typically develop symptoms until years after exposure to asbestos. This makes mesothelioma-related lawsuits more difficult to prevail than other asbestos-related ailments. Asbestos is a hazard and businesses that use it often cover up their use.
The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits led to a number asbestos companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize in a court-supervised proceeding and put funds aside for future and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than 30 billion dollars to compensate mesothelioma patients and other asbestos-related illnesses.
But this has also led to a desire by defendants to get legal rulings that would restrict their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for instance, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured but were used in conjunction with asbestos material that was subsequently purchased. This argument is well 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, such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard trials and the Con Edison Powerhouse trials. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers served as the leading counsel in these cases and other asbestos litigation in New York. The consolidated trials, in which hundreds of asbestos claims were combined into a single trial, cut down the number of asbestos lawsuits and also resulted in significant savings for companies involved in litigation.
Another important advancement in asbestos litigation was made through the passage of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required that the evidence presented in an asbestos lawsuit be founded on peer-reviewed scientific studies, rather than on conjecture and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, in conjunction with the passing of other similar reforms, effectively put out the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies exhausted their defenses against the lawsuits filed on behalf of victims, they began attacking their adversaries lawyers representing them. This strategy is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This tactic is intended to deflect focus from the fact that asbestos companies were responsible for mesothelioma exposure and the mesothelioma which followed.
This method has proven to be extremely efficient, and that is the reason why those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma should speak with a reputable firm as soon as is possible. Even if it isn't clear that you believe you are a mesothelioma case, an experienced firm with the right resources can find evidence of exposure and create a convincing case.
In the beginning asbestos litigation was characterized by a variety of legal claims. Workers who were exposed at work sued businesses that mined or produced asbestos-related products. Second, those who were exposed in public or private buildings sued their employers and property owners. Then, those who were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases sued distributors of asbestos-containing materials as well as manufacturers of protective equipment and banks that funded asbestos projects, and many other parties.
Texas was the site of one of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in bringing asbestos cases to court and fomenting them in huge quantities. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of instructing its clients to focus on specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk, with no regard to accuracy. This practice of "junk science" in asbestos lawsuits was later rescinded by courts and legislative remedies were implemented which helped to stop the litigation raging.
Asbestos victims can claim fair compensation, which includes medical treatment costs. Find a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation to ensure you receive the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can analyze your personal circumstances and determine if you're in an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and help you seek justice against asbestos firms that hurt you.