Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos lawsuit asbestos History

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

A 1973 court decision sparked an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. The cases 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. It seems an unlikely place to make legal history, however, that's exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this time that a judge returned to the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to extort defendants and deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits have their roots in the tort law which stipulates 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 about the danger of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated asbestos was a danger and could be linked to lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers resisted the dangers and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists developed more accurate tests to prove the connection between illness and asbestos. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first case to receive significant legal recognition. It was filed in the year 1969 and was ruled on in 1973.

This case set the precedent for many of the other asbestos cases to come. It was the first time courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal principle of strict liability. It was not necessary for plaintiffs to prove that the companies had acted negligently as it allowed victims to sue multiple manufacturers at one time.

Texas was the next state to reach a major milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the legislature of Texas passed Senate Bill 15. Senate Bill 15 The law required that mesothelioma as well as other asbestos cases be based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of conjecture and supposition from hired gun experts. This was a major change in the law and has helped to reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of several plaintiffs lawyers and their companies, under RICO. This is a federal statute that was created to catch those involved in organized criminal activities. A concerted effort to hide evidence, evade and dispose of asbestos waste, hide documents, and other similar methods have been exposed by courts, which has led to a number of RICO convictions for defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers that asbestos products posed for decades, manufacturers kept putting profits ahead of safety. They even bribed workers to hide their exposure to asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged in the end, tens of thousands victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

In 1973, one case set off a blaze of litigation throughout the United States. In the subsequent three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed. Many of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas which had favorable laws regarding asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 found asbestos defendants could be held liable when they negligently expose an individual to veterans asbestos lawsuits and that this person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and towards the actions of the company. It set the stage for mass torts, which continue today.

The case also established high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to recover their entire damages from just one employer, instead of multiple employers. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal strategy and began using strategies to limit their exposure.

These cynical tactics included changing the definition of "exposure" in order to lessen their liability. They also began to argue the mere presence of asbestos in the air didn't constitute negligence, as exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. These claims sometimes involve the talcum powder, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma due to their use of 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 was hoping that the testimony would shed light on Baron and Budd's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy However, the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

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

The defendants fought back against the plaintiffs assertions. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also used manipulation to influence employees, paying small amounts to keep their health issues quiet and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were effective for a time. However, the truth exploded in the latter part of the 1970s when lawyers representing the victims exposed the Sumner Simpson papers and the ruthless behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Asbestos companies 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 smaller group of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of exposure to asbestos.

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They won a number of key legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn applied not only to specific products, but also to industrial premises in which asbestos was present. It was later affirmed in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

In the early 1980s, many of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to regroup in court and put money aside to cover future asbestos-related liabilities. However the trusts in bankruptcy created by these companies are paying out asbestos lawsuit attorneys-related claims today.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuit compensation lawsuits. To prove exposure to asbestos, it was sufficient to prove that the victim worked at a site where asbestos was used. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products lawyers representing plaintiffs. Baron & Budd's "coaching memo" was a consequence of this new rule.

The Fourth Case

Following the victory of Clarence Borel, more asbestos victims were able to win their cases. But asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma settlement companies began fight back in order to ensure their profits. They started attacking victims on different fronts.

One strategy was to attack victims' evidence. They claimed that victims' illnesses were caused by multiple exposures to asbestos from multiple employers, not one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in a variety of products and each product posed an asbestos exposure risk. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma patients right to rights as they were required to list the asbestos-exposure employers of all their employers.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They asserted that the amount paid to asbestos victims was unjust and out of proportion to the harms that each victim suffered. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their financial, emotional and physical losses. This presented a significant challenge for the insurance industry, since every company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos victims even if they did not cause their asbestos-related illnesses.

Insurance companies also tried to limit asbestos victims' ability to claim compensation by claiming that the insurance coverage of their employers was sufficient at the time of the development of mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence proved that there was no safe level of exposure to asbestos and Veterans Asbestos Lawsuits that mesothelioma symptoms usually develop 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type litigation initiated one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in bulk hoping to overwhelm court system. They also developed a secret coaching method to help their clients target particular defendants. Often, asbestos companies paid for this.

Although some cases went to trial, a lot of victims reached agreements with asbestos companies prior to or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between the victim and the asbestos company that settles the legal claim for compensation. It may be reached prior to or after a trial and is not subject to the same rules as a jury verdict.