10 Top Facebook Pages Of All Time About Asbestos Lawsuit

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won, more asbestos disease compensation claims than any other law firm. This is a significant part of our past.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits in a blaze was sparked. The cases were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical structure located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to make legal history, but this is exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able to uncover a how long does a asbestos lawsuit take-standing scheme to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law which states that any company could be held accountable for any harm caused by a product, if they were aware or ought to have been aware of the dangers associated with its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed that asbestos was dangerous and was linked to not just lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers resisted the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more accurate tests that proved the connection between asbestos and illness. This resulted in an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. The first case to win significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., which was filed in 1969 and was decided in 1973.

This case was a precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. This was the first case that the courts ruled asbestos producers guilty of strict liability. Plaintiffs did not have to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue several manufacturers at once.

Texas was the next state to reach the landmark in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the legislature in Texas passed Senate Bill 15. Senate Bill 15 This law required mesothelioma cases as well as other asbestos poisoning lawsuit cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, rather than conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a significant change in the law, which helped reduce the rumblings of Asbestos exposure Lawsuit settlements lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of several plaintiffs lawyers and their companies under RICO. It is a federal law designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activities. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, conceal documents, and other similar tactics. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions for defendants and plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite knowing the dangers that asbestos lawsuit compensation products posed for decades, manufacturers put profits over safety. Workers were bribed to keep quiet about asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. When the truth finally came out, tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

In 1973, one case set off a blaze of litigation throughout the United States. In the years that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws regarding asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held accountable for damages if they negligently exposed someone to asbestos and that the person developed an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and towards the actions of the company. It set the stage for mass torts, which continue to this day.

The case also set a very high standard for asbestos victims, which allowed them to recover full damages from just one of their employers, rather than several. Insurers quickly realized the potential of this legal strategy and started to employ tactics to limit their exposure.

These cynical strategies included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to lessen their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air did not constitute negligence since exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. In some instances these cases, the plaintiffs are suing the use of talcum powder, which is a source of naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma using talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman believed that the testimony could provide some insight into Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence plan. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began explode. The litigation inferno raged for years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws, and the asbestos companies are located in Texas.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and write papers that bolstered their defenses. They also used manipulative tactics on workers by paying them small amounts to keep their health issues quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a while. However, the truth exploded in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers representing victims came out with the Sumner Simpson papers and the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos companies were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma, and other conditions.

By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients that they accepted. Kazan Law focused on a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They were successful in a variety of key legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn referred not just to specific products but to industrial premises where asbestos was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, a number of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize themselves through court proceedings and set funds aside for future asbestos liabilities. Unfortunately, the bankruptcy trusts created by these companies continue paying asbestos-related damages to the present.

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 at a site that used asbestos. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify products containing asbestos for asbestos exposure lawsuit settlements plaintiffs' lawyers. This new rule was the reason for Baron and Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

The victory of Clarence Borel led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight back to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy was to attack the victims' evidence. They claimed that the illnesses of victims were caused by multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, not just one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in many products and each product posed the risk of exposure to asbestos in its own way. This was a grave attack on the rights of mesothelioma patients since it required them to identify all their asbestos-exposed employers.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded asbestos victims was too high and out of proportion with the physical injuries that each victim sustained. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their emotional, financial and physical injuries. This was a major challenge to the insurance industry as it meant that each company was responsible for asbestos exposure lawsuit settlements paying out huge amounts of funds to asbestos victims even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurers also attempted to restrict the right of asbestos victims to receive compensation by claiming that they were not entitled to damages that were beyond the amount of the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they grew mesothelioma. Medical evidence shows that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type litigation have launched one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also developed a secret coaching method to help their clients target particular defendants. Many times asbestos companies paid them to do this.

Although some cases went to trial, the majority of victims settled with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company that settles an legal claim to compensation. The settlement may be reached during, before or after the trial and is not required to meet the same standards as jury verdicts.