Why People Don t Care About Asbestos Lawsuit History
Asbestos Lawsuit History
asbestos Lawsuits (writeablog.net) are handled through an intricate process. Levy Konigsberg LLP lawyers have played a significant role in consolidated trials of asbestos lawyers in New York that resolve a number of claims at once.
The law requires manufacturers of hazardous products to warn consumers of the dangers. This is especially applicable to companies that manufacture, mine, or mill asbestos or asbestos-containing items.
The First Case
Clarence Borel, a construction worker, filed one of the first asbestos suits ever filed. In his case, Borel argued that several asbestos insulation producers did not adequately warn workers about the dangers of inhaling the dangerous mineral. Asbestos lawsuits can award victims compensatory damages for a wide range of injuries related to exposure to asbestos. Compensatory damages can include a amount of money for suffering and pain, lost earnings, medical expenses and property damage. Based on where you live victims may also receive punitive damages to punish the company for their wrongdoing.
Despite years of warnings, many companies continued to make use of asbestos in a variety of products across the United States. In 1910, the annual production of asbestos around the world surpassed 109,000 metric tonnes. The huge consumption of asbestos was fueled by the need for low-cost and robust construction materials to support population growth. The growing demand for cheap asbestos products that were mass-produced helped to fuel 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. Many asbestos companies filed for bankruptcy and others settled lawsuits using large amounts of cash. But investigations and lawsuits found that asbestos companies as well as plaintiff's lawyers were guilty of committing numerous frauds and corrupt practices. The lawsuits that followed led to conviction of a number of individuals under the Racketeer corrupt and controlled organizations Act (RICO).
In a limestone building that was built in the Neoclassical style on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District, Judge George Hodges uncovered a decades-old scheme by lawyers to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts. His "estimation ruling" profoundly changed the course of asbestos litigation.
Hodges discovered, for instance that in one instance the lawyer told the jury that his client was just exposed to Garlock products, when the evidence showed a larger scope of exposure. Hodges also discovered that lawyers created false claims, concealed information and even fabricated evidence to obtain asbestos victims the compensation they wanted.
Other judges have discovered legal evasions in asbestos cases, though not on the scale 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
The negligence of companies that manufactured and sold asbestos-related products has resulted in the emergence of mesothelioma in thousands of Americans. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts and it's not unusual for victims to receive significant compensation for their losses.
Clarence Borel was the first asbestos case to be awarded a verdict. He suffered from mesothelioma following 33 years of working as an insulation worker. The court found the asbestos-containing insulation manufacturers liable for his injuries as they did not warn him about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. This ruling opens up the possibility of other asbestos lawsuits being successful and ending in settlements or awards for victims.
Many companies were trying to limit their liability as asbestos litigation grew. This was done by paying "experts" who were not reputable to conduct research and write documents that could support their arguments in court. These companies also utilized their resources to try and influence public opinion about the truth regarding asbestos's health risks.
One of the most alarming developments in asbestos litigation is the use of class action lawsuits. These lawsuits permit victims to pursue multiple defendants at the same time, rather than pursuing separate lawsuits against each company. This method, though it can be beneficial in certain situations, it could cause confusion and delay for asbestos victims. The courts have also rejected asbestos class action lawsuits in cases in the past.
Asbestos defendants are also using a legal strategy to limit their liability. They are trying to convince judges to decide that only manufacturers of asbestos-containing product can be held accountable. They also would like to limit the types of damages a judge can award. This is an important issue because it will affect the amount of money a victim will receive in their asbestos lawsuit.
The Third Case
In the late 1960s mesothelioma cases began to rise on the courts' docket. The disease is caused by asbestos exposure which was a mineral often used in construction materials. Mesothelioma sufferers have filed lawsuits against the companies who exposed them to asbestos.
Mesothelioma is a disease with long periods of latency, meaning people do not usually show symptoms of the disease until years after exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is harder to prove than other asbestos-related illnesses due to its long time of latency. Asbestos is a hazardous material and companies that make use of it frequently cover up their use.
A few asbestos-related companies declared bankruptcy due to the litigation firestorm surrounding mesothelioma lawsuits. This allowed them to regroup under the supervision of the courts and set funds aside to cover the future asbestos liabilities. Companies like Johns-Manville have set aside more than $30 billion to compensate mesothelioma victims and other asbestos-related diseases.
This led defendants to seek legal decisions that will limit their liability in asbestos lawsuits. Certain defendants, for example have attempted to argue that their asbestos-containing products were not manufactured, but were used in conjunction with asbestos materials that was subsequently purchased. This argument is clearly illustrated in the British case of Lubbe V Cape Plc (2000 UKHL 41).
A number of massive consolidated asbestos trials, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard and Con Edison Powerhouse trials, were held in New York in the 1980s and 1990s. Levy Konigsberg LLP attorneys served as the leading counsel in these trials and other asbestos litigations that were major in New York. The consolidated trials, which merged hundreds of asbestos claims in one trial, helped reduce the volume of asbestos lawsuits and provided significant savings for companies involved in the litigation.
In 2005, the passing of Senate Bill 15 (now House Bill 1325) and House Bill 1325 (now Senate Bill 15) was another important development in asbestos litigation. These reforms in law required that the evidence presented in a lawsuit involving asbestos be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of relying on speculation and suppositions from a hired-gun expert witness. These laws, along with the passing of other reforms similar to them, effectively quelled the firestorm of litigation.
The Fourth Case
As asbestos companies were unable to defend themselves against the lawsuits filed by victims, they began to attack their adversaries and the lawyers that represent them. This tactic is designed to make plaintiffs appear guilty. This is a tactic that is disingenuous that is designed to distract attention from the fact that asbestos-related companies were the ones responsible for asbestos exposure and mesothelioma that subsequently developed.
This approach has proven effective, and it is why people who have received a mesothelioma diagnosis should consult with an experienced firm as soon as possible. Even if there is no evidence to suggest you have mesothelioma, an experienced firm can find evidence and build a strong claim.
In the early days, asbestos litigation was characterized by a broad range of legal claims. There were first, workers exposed in the workplace who sued businesses that mined and produced asbestos products. A second group of litigants comprised those who were exposed at the home or in public buildings who sued employers and property owners. Then, those diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases, sued distributors of asbestos-containing products, the manufacturers of protective equipment, banks that financed projects using asbestos and numerous other parties.
Texas was the site of one of the most important developments in asbestos litigation. Asbestos firms were specialized in the process of bringing asbestos cases before courts and fomenting them in huge quantities. Of these was the law firm of Baron & Budd, which was infamous for its secret method of coaching its clients to target specific defendants, and for filing cases in bulk with little regard for accuracy. The courts eventually disavowed this practice of "junk-science" in asbestos suits and implemented legislative remedies that helped stop the litigation rumbling.
Asbestos sufferers are entitled to fair compensation, including medical treatment costs. To ensure that you receive the compensation to which you are entitled, you should contact a reputable firm that specializes in asbestos litigation as quickly as you can. A lawyer can analyze the facts of your case, determine if you have an appropriate mesothelioma claim, and help you pursue justice.
