What's The Most Common Asbestos Lawsuit History Debate Actually Isn't As Black Or White As You Might Think
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 in one go.
Manufacturers of hazardous products are legally required to warn consumers about the dangers. This is particularly relevant to companies who manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing items.
The First Case
One of the first 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 inhaling asbestos. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims with compensatory damages for a wide range of injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages may include amount of money for pain and suffering, lost earnings, medical expenses, and property damage. Depending on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages in order to punish the company for its wrongdoing.
Despite warnings throughout the years and despite warnings from the United States continued to use asbestos. By 1910, the global annual production of asbestos was more than 109,000 metric tons. This enormous consumption of asbestos was driven by the need for affordable and robust construction materials to support population growth. Growing demand for low-cost, mass-produced asbestos products led to the rapid growth of the mining and manufacturing industries.
In the 1980s, asbestos producers faced thousands of lawsuits brought by mesothelioma patients and others with asbestos-related diseases. Many asbestos companies went bankrupt and others settled lawsuits with large sums of money. However, lawsuits and other investigations showed an enormous amount of fraud and corruption by attorneys for plaintiffs and asbestos companies. The lawsuits that followed led to the conviction of many individuals under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a neoclassical structure of limestone situated on Trade Street, Charlotte's Central Business District (CBD), Judge George Hodges exposed a decades-old scheme to defraud clients and deplete trusts in bankruptcy. His "estimation ruling" dramatically changed the landscape of asbestos litigation.
For instance, he discovered that in one case a lawyer told the jury that the client was exposed to Garlock's products when the evidence suggested a much wider scope of exposure. Hodges found that lawyers created false claims, hid information, and even created fake evidence to secure asbestos victims' settlements.
Since since then other judges have also noted questionable legal maneuvering in asbestos lawsuits however not to the extent of the Garlock case. The legal community hopes the ongoing revelations of fraud and abuse in asbestos cases will lead to more precise estimates of the amount companies owe to asbestos victims.
The Second Case
Many people across the United States have developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases because of the negligence of businesses that produced and sold asbestos-related products. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not uncommon for victims to receive substantial compensation for their loss.
Warren asbestos lawsuit to win a decision was the case of Clarence Borel, who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis while working as an insulator for 33 years. The court determined that the manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation were liable for his injuries since they failed to warn him about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This ruling opens the way for other asbestos lawsuits to obtain verdicts and awards for victims.
As asbestos litigation grew in the industry, many of the companies involved in the cases were trying to find ways to reduce their liability. They did this by paying untruthful "experts" to conduct research and write documents that would allow them to present their arguments in court. They also employed their resources to to influence public perceptions of the truth about the health risks of asbestos.
Class action lawsuits are one of the most disturbing trends in asbestos litigation. These lawsuits permit victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time instead of pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. While this strategy could be beneficial in certain situations, it can create confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected class action lawsuits for asbestos cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants also employ a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to agree that only the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products should be held accountable. They also would like to limit the types of damages that jurors can award. This is a significant issue since it could affect the amount of money that a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
The number of mesothelioma lawsuits began to increase in the late 1960s. The disease develops after exposure to asbestos, a mineral that a lot of companies used to make a variety of construction materials. The lawsuits filed by people suffering from mesothelioma focused on the companies that caused their exposure to asbestos.
The mesothelioma latency time 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 ailments. Additionally, the companies that used asbestos frequently did not disclose their use of asbestos because they knew it was dangerous.
The mesothelioma litigation firestorm lawsuits led to a number asbestos-related companies declaring bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize in an administrative proceeding supervised by a judge and put funds aside for future and future asbestos-related liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville set aside more than $30 billion to compensate mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
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 attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products weren't manufactured but were used 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 string of large-scale consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials that 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 trials, where hundreds of asbestos claims were brought into one trial, reduced the number of asbestos lawsuits and resulted in significant savings to companies involved in litigation.
In 2005, the passing 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 to the law required the evidence in an asbestos lawsuit be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies rather than based on speculation and supposition from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively quelled the litigation firestorm.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies ran out defenses against lawsuits brought on behalf of victims, they began to attack their opponents attorneys who represent them. This tactic is designed to make the plaintiffs appear to be guilty. This is a dishonest strategy to distract attention from the fact asbestos companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma.
This approach has proven effective, and it is why people who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should speak with a reputable firm as soon as possible. Even if it isn't clear that you believe you have a mesothelioma case, an experienced firm with the appropriate resources can find evidence of exposure and build a strong case.
In the beginning asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. First, there were those exposed in the workplace suing companies that mined and made asbestos-related products. A second group of litigants included those who were exposed at home or in public structures suing property owners and employers. Later, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases filed suit against suppliers of asbestos-containing products, manufacturers of protective equipment as well as banks that financed asbestos projects, and numerous other parties.
One of the most significant developments in asbestos litigation took place in Texas. Asbestos companies were experts in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and fomenting them in huge numbers. Among these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which became notorious for developing a secret method of educating its clients to target 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 instituted legislative remedies to quell the litigation firestorm.
Asbestos victims are entitled to fair compensation for their losses, including the cost of medical care. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, you should consult with an experienced firm that is specialized in asbestos litigation as quickly as possible. A lawyer can analyze your particular situation and determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma lawsuit and assist you in pursuing justice against asbestos companies that have harmed you.