Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos lawsuit asbestos History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won more asbestos exposure lawsuit disease compensation claims than any other law firm. This has been an extremely important aspect of our history.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits in a blaze was sparked. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to record legal history, however, this is exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able to discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are founded on tort law, which states that a business could be held accountable for any harm caused by a product if they knew or should be aware of the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, studies showed asbestos was harmful and linked to not only lung diseases like asbestosis, but also a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied the dangers and continued to sell their products.

By the 1970s, researchers had created more precise tests that confirmed the link between asbestos and disease. This resulted in 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 was a precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. This was the first instance where courts held asbestos manufacturers guilty under strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could sue several manufacturers at once.

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

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of several plaintiffs lawyers and their firms, under RICO. It is a federal statute designed to deter those involved in organized criminal activities. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, hide documents and other similar tactics. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants as well as claimants.

The Second Case

Despite knowing the dangers that asbestos products posed for decades, companies continued to place profits before safety. They even used bribes to get workers to conceal their exposure to asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers were awarded compensation when the truth was revealed.

In 1973, a single instance ignited a firestorm of litigation across the country. In the next three decades, 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 governing asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court decision in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held accountable for damages if they negligently exposed a person to asbestos, Asbestos Lawsuit History and those persons developed an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the company's actions and set the stage for the mass tort system that is still in place 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 recognized the benefits of a legal strategy to limit exposure to asbestos and began employing strategies to limit the exposure.

These cynical strategies included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to limit their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not negligent, as exposure could occur from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. These claims sometimes involve talcum, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested a court to open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimony about the coaching memo in the final months of 2016. Biederman was hoping that the testimony would provide some insight into Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence strategy. However, the trial court denied her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation war raged for many years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of the cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and Asbestos Lawsuit History because the asbestos companies were headquartered in Texas.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also manipulated their workers by paying them small amounts to keep their health issues quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a short time. However, the truth was revealed in the late 1970s when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the brutal conduct of asbestos executives of the company. asbestos class action lawsuit settlement manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma and other diseases.

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 small number of seriously ill employees who had medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.

Lawyers fought against asbestos companies in their attempts to limit liability. They won a number important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the obligation to warn not just for specific products however, but also for industrial premises that contained asbestos raw. 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 allowed them the opportunity to organize themselves in court and put money aside for future asbestos liabilities. Unfortunately, the bankruptcy trusts created by these companies are still paying out asbestos-related damages today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was necessary to show the victim worked on a site where asbestos was used. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to identify their clients who were asbestos-containing products. Baron & Budd's "coaching memo" was the result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Following the victory of Clarence Borel, more asbestos victims won their cases. However, asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy involved attacking the evidence of victims. They claimed that the ailments of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures from many employers, and not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in numerous products and each product posed its own asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious attack on mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit sufferers right to rights as they were required to list all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began a campaign against plaintiffs over the issue of compensation damages. They claimed that the amount paid to asbestos victims was excessive and out of proportion with the injuries each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their physical, emotional and financial loss. This was a major problem to the insurance sector, as every company was obliged to pay large amounts of money to asbestos patients regardless of whether they didn't cause their asbestos illness.

Insurers also tried to limit the ability 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 developed their mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

One of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims came from lawyers who were specialized in this kind of litigation. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs to file them in bulk, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a system for secretly instructing their clients to focus on particular defendants, and they were often paid by asbestos companies they targeted.

Although some cases went to trial, the majority of victims were able to settle 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. It can be reached prior to, during or after a trial. It is not subject to the same conditions as a jury verdict.