15 Tips Your Boss Wants You To Know About Asbestos Lawsuit You'd …

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

A 1973 court ruling sparked an uproar in asbestos lawsuits. The cases were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit started in a neoclassical structure located on Trade Street, Mesothelioma Asbestos lawsuit in Charlotte's Central Business District. It seems an unlikely place to record legal history, however, this is exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this point that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos-related lawsuits have their origins in the tort law which states that the seller or manufacturer of any product may be held accountable for any harm caused by the product if the manufacturer knew or should have known about the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research showed asbestos was harmful and linked to not only lung diseases like asbestosis, but also a rare cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied the dangers and continued to sell their products.

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

This case set the precedent for a lot of asbestos cases to follow. It was the first time that courts ruled that asbestos 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 at once.

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

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a variety of plaintiffs' attorneys and their firms under RICO which is a federal law designed to identify those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, hide documentation, and mesothelioma asbestos lawsuit other similar tactics. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants as well as plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits ahead of safety. They even used bribes to get workers to conceal their exposure to asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers received damages when the truth was finally exposed.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a national litigation firestorm. In the years that followed there were tens of thousands asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas the state that has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants can be held liable if they negligently expose a person to asbestos and the person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and towards the company's actions. It paved the way for mass torts that continue to this day.

The case also set a high standard for asbestos lawsuit compensation victims, which allowed them to seek full damages from just one of their employers instead of several. Insurance companies realized the possibility of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began employing strategies to limit it.

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, as exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. The claims often involve Talcum, a substance that naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma because of their use of talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

In the latter part of 2016, a reporter for the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested a judge to release the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman hoped the testimony would shed some light on Budd and Baron's involvement in the mesothelioma defence plan. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

Following the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began to grow. The litigation saga raged for years. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma asbestos lawsuit and other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because the asbestos companies were headquartered there.

The defendants fought back against the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and then publish papers to support their defenses. They also used manipulation to influence employees, offering them small amounts to keep their health issues secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics worked for a while. The truth was revealed in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos producers were sued by thousands of workers for Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawsuit and other diseases.

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

Lawyers fought asbestos companies in their attempts to limit 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 was applicable not just to specific products but to industrial premises where asbestos was present. It was later upheld in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

In the early 1980s, many of the largest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to reorganize through the courts and set aside funds aside to pay for future asbestos liabilities. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts set 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 asbestos exposure, it was enough to prove that the victim worked at a place that used asbestos. This undermined the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for lawyers representing plaintiffs. This new rule was the reason for Baron and Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

After Clarence Borel's victory, more asbestos victims won their cases. But asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to attack evidence from victims. They claimed that the illnesses of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures from a variety of employers, not just one exposure. This was because the companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each was characterized by its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma victims rights since it required them to disclose all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over compensation damages. They claimed that the amount paid to asbestos victims was too high and out of proportion with the physical injuries that each victim sustained. asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma settlement victims demanded compensation for their financial, emotional and physical losses. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry as it meant that each company was responsible for paying out huge amounts of funds to asbestos victims even if the company did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurers also tried to restrict the rights asbestos victims to claim compensation by claiming that they weren't entitled to any damages that were beyond the amount of the liability insurance coverage of their employer at the time they grew mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence demonstrated that there was no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms typically develop 10 years after exposure.

One of the most destructive assaults on asbestos class action lawsuit settlement victims was from lawyers who specialized in this type of litigation. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a system to secretly coach their clients to target particular defendants, and they were often paid by asbestos companies they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled before or during trial. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company that settles the legal claim for compensation. It can be reached prior to, during or after a trial and is not subject to the same requirements as the verdict of a jury.