10 Startups Set To Change The Asbestos Lawsuit Industry For The Better

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos class action lawsuit asbestos exposure History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won, more asbestos disease compensation cases than any other law firm. This has been a crucial aspect of our history.

A 1973 court ruling sparked an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a limestone neoclassical building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to create legal history but it was exactly the case in 1973. A retired judge was able uncover a long-standing scheme to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are founded on tort law, which stipulates that a company is liable for any harm caused by a product, if they knew or should be aware of the dangers associated with its use. Research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved asbestos's dangers and linked not only to lung diseases like asbestosis, but also to a rare type of cancer known as mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted the risks and continued to sell their products.

By the 1970s, researchers had developed more precise tests that proved the connection between asbestos and disease. This resulted in a dramatic rise in asbestos-related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to gain significant legal recognition. The case was filed in 1969 and was decided in 1973.

This case set the stage for many of the other asbestos cases to come. It was the first time that the courts ruled that asbestos producers could be found to be guilty under the legal theory of strict liability. It was not necessary for plaintiffs to prove the companies had committed negligence and allowed victims to sue multiple manufacturers at the same time.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history was in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature of Texas passed Senate Bill 15. Senate Bill 15 The law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases be determined by peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of speculation and conjecture from hired gun experts. This was a major advance in the law that helped stop the furore of asbestos lawsuits.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their companies under RICO which is a federal law that was designed to identify those involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, hide documents, and other similar tactics. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions for defendants as well as plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products posed for asbestos lawsuit history decades, companies kept putting profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to keep quiet about asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits asbestos.

In 1973, a single case ignited a firestorm of litigation across the country. In the subsequent three decades, tens of 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 decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants could be held responsible for damages if they negligently exposed someone to asbestos, and the person developed an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted asbestos litigation away from the individual worker, and more towards the company's actions. It paved the way for mass torts, which are still in force today.

The case also set high standards for veterans asbestos lawsuits victims. This allowed them to claim their entire damages from just one employer, rather than many. Insurers realized the potential of a legal method to limit asbestos exposure and began to use tactics to limit exposure.

These cynical strategies included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to lessen their liability. They also began to argue that the presence of asbestos in the air didn't constitute negligence since exposure can occur from many sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. In certain instances these cases, they involve talcum powder, which contains asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma settlement fibers that naturally occur. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after using talcum powder in the 1970s and 80s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo in late 2016. Biederman believed that the testimony would provide insight into Baron and Budd's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy however, the trial court refused the request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation saga raged for a long time. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Texas has favorable laws, and asbestos companies have headquartered there.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also used manipulation to influence employees, offering them small amounts to keep their health concerns quiet and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a time. The truth was exposed in the late 1970s when lawyers representing the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos companies were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

In the mid-1980s asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients they would take on. The Kazan Law firm focused on representing a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.

Lawyers fought against the asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They won a number important legal rulings including 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 that contained raw asbestos. 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 to regroup in court and put money aside to pay for future asbestos-related liabilities. Sadly, bankruptcy trusts set by these companies continue to compensate asbestos-related damage.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was enough to show the victim worked at a place of work where asbestos was utilized. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit-containing products plaintiffs' lawyers. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was the result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory paved the way for the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began to fight back in order to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to challenge the evidence of the victims. They claimed that the illnesses of victims were the result of multiple asbestos exposures from a variety of employers, and not only one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in many products, and each one posed its own asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious attack on mesothelioma victims' rights because they were required to list all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over the issue of compensation damages. They claimed that the amount awarded asbestos victims was too high and insufficient to the physical injuries that each victim sustained. Asbestos sufferers were seeking compensation for their emotional, physical and financial loss. This presented a major problem for the insurance industry since it meant that each company was accountable for paying large amounts of money to asbestos victims, even if they did not directly cause their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also tried to limit the ability asbestos victims to recover compensation by claiming that they were not entitled to damages that were beyond the amount of their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they developed their mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence showed that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms usually occur 10 years after exposure.

One of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims came from lawyers who specialized in this type of litigation. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk hoping to overwhelm court system. They also devised a system to secretly coach their clients to focus on specific defendants, and they were often paid to do so by asbestos companies they targeted.

Although some cases went to trial, many victims were able to settle with asbestos companies before or during the trial. An asbestos settlement is a deal between a victim and an asbestos company to end an legal claim for compensation. It can be reached before, during or after a trial and is not subject to the same conditions as a jury verdict.