• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Asbestos Lawsuit History

Asbestos lawsuits are dealt with through an intricate process. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys have played a significant role in asbestos trials that are consolidated in New York, which resolve a significant number of claims at one time.

Companies that manufacture hazardous products are legally required to inform consumers about the dangers. This is especially true for companies who mill, mine or manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing substances.

The First Case

Clarence Borel, a construction worker, brought one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several manufacturers of asbestos insulation products did not warn workers of the dangers of inhaling the dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensation damages for a variety of injuries that result from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damage can include a sum of money for discomfort and pain and lost earnings, medical costs as well as property damage. Depending on where you reside victims may also receive punitive damages to punish the company for their wrongdoing.

Despite warnings for many years, many companies in the United States continued to use asbestos. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos around the world exceeded 109,000 metric tons. This enormous consumption of asbestos was driven by the need for affordable and durable construction materials to meet population growth. The demand for inexpensive, mass-produced products made of asbestos helped fuel the rapid growth of manufacturing and mining industries.

In the 1980s, asbestos manufacturers faced thousands of lawsuits from mesothelioma patients and other asbestos disease victims. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy and others settled lawsuits with huge amounts of cash. However, lawsuits and other investigations showed a huge amount of fraud and corruption by plaintiff's attorneys and asbestos companies. The subsequent litigation led to convictions for many individuals in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

In a neoclassical building of limestone on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to swindle clients and deplete trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation decision" changed the face of asbestos lawsuits.

Hodges found, for instance that in one instance the lawyer told jurors that his client was only exposed to Garlock products, whereas the evidence showed a broader scope of exposure. Hodges also found that lawyers made up claims, concealed information, and even fabricated evidence to gain asbestos victims the settlements they sought.

Since then other judges have also noted the need for legal redress in asbestos lawsuits but not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes that the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will result in more accurate estimates of how much companies owe asbestos victims.

The Second Case

The negligence of companies who manufactured and sold asbestos-related products has led to the development mesothelioma among thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive substantial compensation for their injuries.

The first asbestos lawsuit to get a verdict was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma as well as asbestosis while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court held asbestos-containing insulation companies responsible for his injuries, because they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos lawyer. This ruling opened up the possibility of further asbestos lawsuits proving successful and culminating in settlements or awards for victims.

Many companies were looking for ways to limit their liabilities as asbestos litigation grew. They did this by hiring shady "experts" to conduct research and publish papers that would assist them to argue their case in the courtroom. These companies also used their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth regarding asbestos's health risks.

One of the most alarming trends in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims and their families to take on multiple defendants at one time rather than pursuing individual lawsuits against each company. This method, though it could be beneficial in certain situations, it could cause 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.

Another legal strategy employed by asbestos defendants is to seek legal rulings that can aid them in limiting the scope of their liabilities. They are attempting to get judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos attorneys-containing product can be held responsible. They also are seeking to limit the kinds of damages that a juror can award. This is a crucial issue because it will impact the amount of money an asbestos victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.

The Third Case

In the late 1960s, mesothelioma cases started to increase on the courts' docket. The disease develops following exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies used to make a variety of construction materials. Lawsuits brought by workers suffering from mesothelioma centered on the businesses responsible for their exposure to asbestos.

The latency period for mesothelioma is lengthy, which means that patients don't exhibit symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related diseases because of this long latency period. Additionally, the companies who used asbestos often concealed their use of the material because they knew it was dangerous.

The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits resulted in a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to organize themselves in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put money aside for current and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

However, this also led to an attempt by defendants to obtain legal rulings that would limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example, have tried to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't made, but were utilized in conjunction with asbestos lawyers material that was later purchased. This argument is well-executed in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).

A number of massive asbestos trials that were consolidated, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, took place in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as leading counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigation major in New York. These consolidated trials, which combined hundreds of asbestos claims into a single trial, helped to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings for companies involved in the litigation.

Another significant change in asbestos litigation occurred with the adoption of Senate Bill 15 and House Bill 1325 in 2005. These legal reforms required the evidence in asbestos lawsuits to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or supposition by an expert witness hired by a company. These laws, and the passing of similar reforms to them, effectively squelched the litigation firestorm.

The Fourth Case

As asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their opponents the lawyers that represent them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous that is designed to distract focus from the fact that asbestos-related companies were responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma which followed.

This strategy has proven be very effective. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma must consult an experienced firm as soon as they can. Even if you don't think you're suffering from mesothelioma expert firm will be able to find evidence and make a convincing claim.

In the early days asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad variety of legal claims. First, there were those exposed in the workplace who sued companies that mined and made asbestos products. Another class of litigants comprised those exposed at home or in public structures seeking compensation from employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, sued suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that funded projects that used asbestos, and many other parties.

One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in bringing asbestos cases to court and bringing them to trial in large quantities. One of them was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a 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 lawyer lawsuits eventually was disavowed by courts and legislative remedies were implemented that slowed the litigation raging.

Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation, including medical expenses. Consult an experienced firm specializing in asbestos litigation to ensure you get the compensation you're entitled to. A lawyer can review your particular situation and determine if you're in a mesothelioma claim that is viable and help you pursue justice against asbestos companies that harmed you.