Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and won, more asbestos disease compensation claims than any other law firm. This is a significant aspect of our history.

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

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a neoclassical limestone building located on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. In 1973 a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District became the location of a landmark legal landmark. A retired judge was able to discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

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

In the 1970s, scientists had developed more precise tests to confirm the link between illness and asbestos. This led to an increase in asbestos-related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to gain significant legal recognition. It was filed in 1969 and was ruled on in 1973.

This case was a precedent for the many asbestos cases that would follow. It was the first time courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. It was not necessary for plaintiffs to prove the companies committed negligence, and Asbestos Lawsuit Attorneys it allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at the same time.

Texas was the next state to reach an important milestone in the history of asbestos litigation. In 2005, Asbestos Lawsuit attorneys the legislature in Texas approved Senate Bill 15 The law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of speculation and conjecture from hired-gun experts. This was a major advance in the law, which helped stop the furore of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs lawyers and their companies under RICO. This is a federal law designed to catch those involved in organized criminal activity. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, mishandle and discard asbestos waste, hide documents, and other similar strategies have been exposed by courts, which has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products posed for decades, manufacturers continued to place profits before safety. They even paid workers to hide their exposure to asbestos-related lawsuit illnesses such as mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit. When the truth finally came out in the end, tens of thousands victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

In 1973, a single instance led to a storm of litigation across the nation. In the decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A majority of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas the state that has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants could be held accountable for damages when they negligently exposed a person to asbestos and those persons developed an asbestos-related disease. This case shifted 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 very high bar for asbestos victims which allowed them to recover full damages from just one of their employers, instead of several. Insurance companies recognized the benefits of a legal strategy to limit exposure to asbestos lawsuit settlement amounts and began using strategies to limit it.

In order to reduce liability, these cynical tactics 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 since exposure can come from various sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. These cases often involve Talcum, a substance that naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit using talcum powder during 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 late 2016. Biederman was hoping that the testimony would shed some light on Budd and Baron's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos-related lawsuits exploded in following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation firestorm raged on for many years. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and because the asbestos companies were headquartered in Texas.

The defendants fought back the plaintiffs claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also used manipulative tactics on workers by offering them small sums to keep their health issues at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a time. But the truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing victims came out with the Sumner Simpson papers and the ruthless behavior of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma, and other conditions.

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

Lawyers fought asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They were successful in a variety of important legal rulings, including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established that the duty to warn referred not just to specific 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 manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize themselves through court proceedings and set funds aside for the future asbestos-related obligations. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts put 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 that the victim was on a jobsite at which asbestos was employed. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to determine their clients with asbestos-containing products. Baron and Budd's "coaching memo" was the result of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

The victory of Clarence Borel led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They started attacking victims on many different areas.

One strategy involved attacking evidence from victims. They claimed that victims' illnesses were caused by multiple exposures to asbestos by many employers and not one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in a variety of products and each had its own asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma patients, because it required them to disclose the asbestos-exposed employers of their.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount paid to asbestos victims was too high and out of proportion with the suffering each victim endured. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their emotional, financial and physical injuries. This was a major challenge to the insurance industry because it meant that each company was accountable for paying large sums of money to asbestos victims even if they did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict asbestos victims' rights to be compensated, arguing that their employer's insurance coverage was adequate at the time of mesothelioma's onset. This was despite the fact that medical evidence showed that there is no safe amount of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms typically develop 10 years after exposure.

One of the most devastating assaults on asbestos victims was from lawyers who specialized in this kind of litigation. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers hoping to overwhelm court system. They also created a process for secretly instructing their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid to do so by asbestos companies they targeted.

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