Don't Be Enticed By These "Trends" About Asbestos Lawsuit

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and received more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firms. This has been a tremendously important aspect of our history.

In the wake of the 1973 court ruling, asbestos lawsuits in a blaze began to take hold. The lawsuits were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a neoclassical limestone building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to make legal history, but this is exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this point that a judge was called back to the bench after retirement and began to unravel a long-running scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to extort defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos-related lawsuits have their origins in the law of tort, which states that a manufacturer or seller of any product can be held accountable for any injury caused by the product if it knew or should have been aware of the dangers of its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed asbestos was a danger and was linked to not just lung diseases like asbestosis, but also to a rare type of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied these risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had created more precise tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos and illness. This resulted in an increase in asbestos lawsuit payouts-related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to gain significant legal recognition. It was filed in 1969, and decided in 1973.

This case set the stage for the many other asbestos cases to come. This was the first case where courts held asbestos manufacturers guilty under strict liability. It was not necessary for plaintiffs to prove that the companies had committed negligence and allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at once.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history was in the state of Texas. In 2005, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 15. Senate Bill 15 This law required mesothelioma cases as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, not conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a major advance in the law, which helped reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation have included the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their companies under RICO, which is a federal law crafted to catch those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar tactics. This has led to numerous RICO convictions, both for defendants and the plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products could pose for decades, manufacturers kept putting profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to keep from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation firestorm. In the next three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas, which had favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants can be held accountable if they negligently expose the person to asbestos and that this person develops an asbestos-related disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the actions of the company and laid the foundation for the mass tort system that continues today.

The case also set a very high bar for Asbestos Lawsuit History asbestos victims which allowed them to seek full damages from just one of their employers rather than a number of. Insurance companies realized the possibility of a legal strategy to limit exposure to asbestos and began using strategies to limit exposure.

These cynical tactics included altering the definition of "exposure" in order to limit their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not a cause for negligence because exposure can occur from various sources.

Asbestos litigation continues and there are always new asbestos cases filed every year. In some cases, these claims involve the use of talcum powder, which is a source of naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma because of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested a court to open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman hoped that the testimony would shed light on Baron & Budd's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy however, the trial court refused the request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits began to grow. The litigation firestorm raged on for years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and also because asbestos companies had their headquarters there.

The defendants fought the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers to support their defenses. They also manipulate employees, paying them small amounts to keep their health issues secret and urging them to sign confidentiality contracts.

These strategies worked for a while. The truth was exposed in the late 1970s when lawyers for the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and Asbestos Lawsuit History exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos companies were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma and other diseases.

In the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they took on. Kazan Law focused on a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical proof of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They won a number of crucial legal rulings, such as Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the requirement to warn not only for specific products, but also for industrial facilities which contained asbestos. The duty to warn was later confirmed in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

Several of the largest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them to reorganize in court and put money aside to pay for future asbestos-related obligations. However the trusts in bankruptcy created by these companies continue paying out asbestos-related claims today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure, it was enough to prove that the victim worked in a location where asbestos was utilized. This weakened the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for plaintiffs' lawyers. This new rule was the basis for Baron & Budd’s "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

After the victory of Clarence Borel more asbestos victims won their lawsuits. But asbestos companies started to fight for their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to attack the evidence of victims. They claimed that the victims suffered from illnesses that were the result of multiple exposures to asbestos by multiple employers, not one exposure. This was because companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product was characterized by its own unique asbestos exposure risks. This was a grave attack on the rights of mesothelioma patients because it required them to disclose the asbestos-exposed employers of their.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They asserted that the amount paid to asbestos victims was unjust and not proportional to the harms suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their emotional, financial and physical damages. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry because it meant that each company was responsible for paying out large sums of money to asbestos victims, even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurance companies also tried to limit asbestos victims' right to receive compensation, arguing that their employer's insurance coverage was adequate at the time of the development of mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence demonstrated that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos and that mesothelioma symptoms typically develop 10 years after exposure.

One of the most destructive assaults on asbestos cancer lawsuit mesothelioma settlement victims was from lawyers who were specialized in this kind of litigation. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a method for secretly coaching their clients to target particular defendants, and they were often paid by the asbestos companies they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled before or during trial. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between a victim and an asbestos company to stop an legal claim for compensation. The settlement may be reached before, during or after the trial. It is not required to satisfy the same requirements as jury verdicts.