10 No-Fuss Methods To Figuring Out Your Asbestos Lawsuit

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firms. This has been a hugely important aspect of our history.

Following a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits in a blaze was sparked. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of uninjured plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical house located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973, a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District was the location of a landmark legal landmark. A retired judge was able uncover a long-running scheme that was used to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law which stipulates that a company is liable for any harm caused by a product if they were aware or ought to be aware of the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s and 1960s, research revealed asbestos was harmful and linked to not only lung diseases such as asbestosis but also a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied these risks and continued selling their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more precise tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos and disease. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. The first case that gained significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. The case was filed in 1969 and ruled in 1973.

This case set the precedent for the many asbestos cases that would follow. It was the first time that courts ruled that asbestos cancer Lawsuit lawyer Mesothelioma manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the company, and they could also sue multiple manufacturers simultaneously.

The next major landmark in the history of asbestos lawsuits was in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. The law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases to be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies, and not speculation or suppositions made by hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law that helped to stop the furore of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO which is a federal law designed to catch those who are involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, hide documentation, and other similar tactics. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions for defendants as well as claimants.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades, asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer Mesothelioma they continued to put profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed into keeping from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims received damages when the truth was finally disclosed.

In 1973, a single case ignited a firestorm of litigation throughout the United States. In the subsequent three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas, which had favorable laws governing asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held liable for damages when they negligently exposed a person to asbestos and that those exposed to asbestos developed an disease. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the company's actions and set the stage for the mass tort system which continues to this day.

The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to claim their full compensation from only one employer, rather than several. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal strategy and began using strategies to limit their exposure.

In order to reduce liability, these cynical strategies include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not a cause for negligence, as exposure could occur from various sources.

Asbestos litigation continues, and there are always new asbestos cases being filed each year. The claims often involve the talcum powder, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma using talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

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 hoped that the testimony would shed light on Baron and Budd's role in mesothelioma's defense strategy however, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the wake of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation saga raged for a long time. Many victims developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws, and the asbestos companies are located in Texas.

The defendants fought back against the plaintiffs assertions. They hired scientists to conduct research and then publish papers that supported their defenses. They also used manipulative tactics on workers by paying them small amounts to keep their health issues at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics worked for a while. However, the truth exploded in the late 1970s when lawyers representing victims came out with the Sumner Simpson papers and the ruthless behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Thousands of asbestos workers were legally able to sue asbestos companies for mesothelioma, and related conditions.

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

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They won a number important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the duty to warn not only for specific products however, but also for industrial facilities that contained raw asbestos. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

Several of the largest asbestos manufacturers filed for bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This gave them the chance to organize themselves in court and set money aside for future asbestos obligations. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts put up by these companies still pay asbestos-related damages.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was necessary to prove that the victim worked on a jobsite at which asbestos was utilized. This undermined the legal system and made it easier to identify products containing asbestos for plaintiffs' lawyers. This new rule was the reason for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memorandum".

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 defend their profits. They started attacking victims on a number of different fronts.

One strategy was to attack the victims' evidence. They claimed that the illnesses of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, and not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product had its own unique asbestos exposure risks. This was a serious attack on the rights of mesothelioma patients, because it required them to disclose all their asbestos-exposed employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over compensation damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was unjust and not proportional to the harms suffered by each individual victim. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, physical and financial losses. This presented a major problem for the insurance industry since it meant that every company was responsible for paying out large amounts of funds to asbestos victims even if the companies did not directly cause their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict the right of asbestos victims to receive compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to any damages that were beyond the amount of the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they grew mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation initiated one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. These attorneys gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a shady coaching method to assist their clients in identifying particular defendants. Many times, asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

Although some cases went to trial, the majority of victims reached agreements with asbestos companies prior to or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company that settles a legal claim of compensation. It can be reached before, during or after a trial. It is not subject to the same requirements as a jury verdict.