Asbestos Lawsuit History

Since the 1980s, a number of asbestos-producing businesses and employers have gone through bankruptcy and the victims are compensated through trust funds for bankruptcy and individual lawsuits. Some plaintiffs have reported that their cases were the subject of shady legal maneuvering.

A number of asbestos-related cases have been heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court has dealt with cases that involved settlements of class actions seeking to limit liability.

Anna Pirskowski

Anna Pirskowski, a woman who died in the mid-1900s from asbestos-related illnesses was a well-known case. Her death was significant because it prompted asbestos lawsuits against several manufacturers, and led to an increase in claims filed by patients diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer or other ailments. The lawsuits against these companies resulted in the creation of trust funds which have been used by banksrupt companies to pay for asbestos-related victims. These funds also allow asbestos victims and their families to receive compensation for their medical expenses, suffering.

The asbestos-effected workers often bring the substance home to their families. If this happens, family members inhale the fibers which causes them to experience the same symptoms as the asbestos-exposed worker. Some of these symptoms include chronic respiratory issues, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.

While many asbestos companies knew asbestos was hazardous however, they minimized the risks and did not inform their employees or customers. Johns Manville Company actually refused to let life insurance companies into their buildings to place warning signs. Asbestos was found to be carcinogenic in the 1930s, according to research conducted by Johns Manville.

OSHA was founded in 1971, but it began to regulate asbestos only in the 1970s. In the 1970s doctors were working to warn the public about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. These efforts were generally successful. News articles and lawsuits raised awareness, but asbestos companies resisted calls for more stringent regulation.

Despite the fact that asbestos has been banned in the United States, mesothelioma continues to be a major issue for individuals throughout the country. Asbest remains in commercial and residential buildings, even those built before the 1970s. It is important that individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma, or any other asbestos-related illness, seek legal advice. An experienced lawyer can assist them in obtaining the compensation they deserve. They will be able understand the complex laws which apply to this particular case and make sure they get the best possible outcome.

Claude Tomplait

In 1966, Claude Tomplait was diagnosed with asbestosis. He then filed his first lawsuit against asbestos-related product manufacturers. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the manufacturers had failed to warn of the dangers associated with their insulation products. This crucial case triggered the floodgates of hundreds of thousands of similar lawsuits, which continue to be filed today.

Most asbestos lawsuits are brought by people who have worked in the construction industry and used asbestos-containing products. Plumbers, electricians and carpenters are among those who have been affected. A few of these workers are currently suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer and other asbestos-related illnesses. Some of them are seeking compensation in the event that their loved ones have passed away.

A lawsuit filed against an asbestos-related product manufacturer can result in millions dollars in damages. These funds are used to cover the medical bills of the past and future as well as lost wages, pain and suffering. It can also be used to pay for funeral and burial costs, and loss of companionship.

Asbestos litigation has forced many businesses into bankruptcy and created asbestos trust funds to pay victims. The litigation has also put a strain on federal and state courts. In addition it has consumed thousands of hours of attorneys and witnesses.

The asbestos litigation was a costly and long-running process that took several decades. The asbestos litigation was a long and costly process that spanned years. However, it was successful in the exposing of asbestos executives who kept the truth about asbestos for many years. These executives were aware of the dangers and pushed employees to not speak up about their health problems.

After years of trial, appeal and the court's rulings in Tomplait's favor. The court's decision was based upon the 1965 edition of the Restatement of Torts, which states that "A manufacturer is liable for injury to an end-user or consumer of its product if it is sold in a defected condition without adequate warning."

Jacqueline Watson, Tomplait's wife was awarded damages by the court following the verdict. However, Ms. Watson died before the court could make her final verdict. Kazan Law volunteered to take the case to the California Supreme Court to overturn the Appellate Court's decision.

Clarence Borel

In the late 1950s asbestos insulators like Borel were starting to complain of breathing issues and thickening of their fingertip tissue, called "finger clubbing." They filed worker's compensation claims. The asbestos industry, however, minimized asbestos its health risks. In the 1960s, more medical research began to link asbestos attorney exposure to respiratory ailments such as mesothelioma and asbestosis.

In 1969, Borel sued manufacturers of asbestos attorney-containing insulation materials for failing to warn of the dangers of their products. He claimed that he developed asbestosis and mesothelioma as a result of working with their insulation for 33 years. The court ruled the defendants had a duty of warning.

The defendants argue that they did not breach their duty to inform because they knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with asbestos before the year 1968. Expert testimony indicates that asbestosis may not develop until 15 to 20 or even 25 years after asbestos exposure. However, if these experts are right then the defendants could have been held liable for the injuries suffered by others who may have suffered from asbestosis before Borel.

The defendants argue that they aren't responsible for Borel’s mesothelioma because it was his choice to continue working with asbestos-containing substances. Kazan Law gathered evidence that revealed that the defendants' businesses were aware of asbestos' risks and hid the risks for many years.

The 1970s saw a surge in asbestos-related litigation, despite the Claude Tomplait class action case being the first. Asbestos lawsuits flooded the courts and a multitude of workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases. In the wake of the litigation, numerous asbestos-related companies went bankrupt and established trust funds to pay for victims of their asbestos-related ailments. As the litigation grew, it became evident that asbestos companies were responsible for the harm caused by toxic materials. Therefore the asbestos industry was forced to reform how they operated. Today, many asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled for millions of dollars.

Stanley Levy

Stanley Levy is the author of several articles that have been published in journals of academic research. He has also spoken on these topics at various legal conferences and seminar. He is a member of the American Bar Association and has been on numerous committees dealing mesothelioma and asbestos as well as mass torts. The firm he runs, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg represents more than 500 asbestos victims across the United States.

The firm charges 33 percent plus the cost of expenses for any compensation it receives for clients. It has secured some of the largest verdicts in asbestos litigation history such as an award of $22 million for a mesothelioma patient who worked at the New York City steel plant. The firm also represents 132 Brooklyn Navy Yard plaintiffs, and has filed claims for thousands of patients suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.

Despite this success however, the firm is confronted with criticism for its involvement in asbestos attorneys lawsuits. It has been accused by critics of encouraging conspiracy theories, attacking the jury system, and inflating statistics. The company has also been accused of investigating fraud claims. In response to this the company has announced a public defense fund and is looking for donations from corporations and individuals.

A second problem is that a lot of defendants are against the consensus of science that asbestos is a cause of mesothelioma, even at low levels. They have used the money provided by the asbestos industries to hire "experts" who have published papers in journals of academics to back their arguments.

In addition to arguing over the scientific consensus regarding asbestos, lawyers are also focused on other aspects of the case. They argue, for instance regarding the constructive notification required to submit an asbestos claim. They argue that in order to be entitled to compensation the victim must have been aware of asbestos' dangers. They also debate the proportion of compensation among various asbestos-related diseases.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs argue there is a huge public interest in granting compensatory damages for people who suffer from mesothelioma or related diseases. They argue that asbestos-producing companies should have been aware of the risks, and they should be held accountable.