10 No-Fuss Strategies To Figuring Out Your Asbestos Lawsuit

Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and won more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been a hugely significant aspect of our history.

Following a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits exploded and took hold. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973, a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District became the site of a legal landmark. It was at this time that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to extort defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law, which states that any company is liable for any harm caused by a product, if they knew or should have known about the dangers of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed asbestos was a danger and was linked to not just lung disease like asbestosis but also to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists created more precise tests to prove the connection between asbestos and illness. This resulted in a dramatic rise 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 ruled in 1973.

This case set the stage for a lot of other asbestos cases to come. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos producers could be found to be guilty under the legal theory of strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove the companies committed negligence as it allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at once.

The next significant milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required that mesothelioma and other asbestos cases be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of speculation and conjecture from hired gun experts. This was a significant change in the law and has helped to stop the raging asbestos litigation.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their companies under RICO, which is a federal law crafted to catch those involved in organized crime. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar strategies. This has led to a number RICO convictions for defendants and claimants.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades and decades, they put profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to remain secret about asbestos-related illnesses, such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma patients were awarded compensation when the truth was finally disclosed.

One case in 1973 served as the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation blaze. In the following three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed. Many of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas the state that has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held accountable for damages when they negligently exposed someone to asbestos, and the person developed an asbestos-related lawsuit illness. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the company's actions and paved the way for the mass tort system which continues to this day.

The case also set a high bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to seek the full amount of damages from one of their employers, instead of several. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal strategy and started using strategies to limit their exposure.

These cynical tactics included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to reduce their liability. They also began to argue that the presence of asbestos in the air did not constitute negligence since exposure can come from how long does a asbestos lawsuit take variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues and there are always new asbestos cases filed each year. In some instances, these claims involve talcum powder, which contains asbestos fibers that naturally occur. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after using talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

In the latter part of 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman requested that a judge release the transcript of Budd's deposition regarding the coaching memo. Biederman believed that the testimony could provide some insight into Budd and Baron's role in the mesothelioma defence strategy. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision asbestos lawsuits began increase in volume. The litigation war raged for years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit or Asbestos Lawsuit History other asbestos-related diseases. 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 then publish papers that supported their defenses. They also manipulate employees by paying small amounts to keep their health concerns quiet and encouraging employees to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics worked for a while. But the truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Thousands of workers were in a position to sue asbestos producers for mesothelioma, and related conditions.

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

Lawyers fought against the asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They won several important legal rulings including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn referred not just to certain products, but also to industrial premises in which asbestos was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

A number of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This gave them the opportunity to organize themselves in court and put money aside for the future asbestos-related obligations. 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 asbestos exposure it was enough to show that the victim worked in a location where asbestos was utilized. This weakened the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to identify their clients who were asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for Baron and 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 to defend their profits. They began to attack victims on different areas.

One strategy was to attack evidence from victims. They claimed that the ailments of victims were the result of multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, and not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each product had its own unique asbestos exposure risk. This was a grave attack on the rights of mesothelioma sufferers, since it required them to identify the asbestos-exposed employers of their.

The 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 not in proportion to the physical injuries that each victim sustained. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their financial, emotional and physical losses. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry as it meant that each company was accountable for paying huge amounts of money to asbestos victims, even if they did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurers also attempted to restrict the right of asbestos victims to receive compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to any damages that went beyond the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that symptoms of mesothelioma typically appear 10 years after exposure.

One of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims came from lawyers who were specialized in this type of litigation. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a secret coaching system to help their clients target particular defendants. Many times, asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

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