Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firm. This has been a hugely important part of our history.

In the wake of the 1973 court ruling, a firestorm of asbestos lawsuits was sparked. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of uninjured plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit was initiated in a neoclassical structure 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 site of a legal landmark. A retired judge was able to uncover a long-standing scheme to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are founded on tort law, which states that any company is liable for any harm caused by a product if they knew or should have been aware of the dangers of its use. In the 1950s and 1960s, studies showed asbestos's harmful effects and linked to not only lung diseases like asbestosis, but also a rare cancer called mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists created more precise tests to confirm the link between asbestos and illness. This led to a dramatic 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 set the precedent for asbestos Lawsuit Attorneys 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. Plaintiffs did not have to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue several manufacturers simultaneously.

The next significant milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state Texas. In 2005 the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. The law required that mesothelioma and other asbestos cases be determined by 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 a number of plaintiffs lawyers and their firms, under RICO. It is a federal law designed to catch those involved in organized criminal activities. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, evade and dispose of asbestos waste, conceal documents, and other similar strategies have been exposed by the courts, resulting in numerous RICO convictions for defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits over safety. Workers were bribed to remain secret about asbestos-related illnesses, such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims were compensated when the truth was finally revealed.

One instance in 1973 was the spark that ignited a nation-wide litigation blaze. In the three decades that followed the tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas, which had favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established asbestos defendants could be held responsible for damages when they negligently exposed a person to asbestos and the person developed an asbestos-related disease. This case changed the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and towards the company's actions. It set the stage for mass torts that continue today.

The case also set high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to claim their entire damages from just one employer, instead of many. Insurers realized the potential of a legal strategy to limit asbestos exposure and began using strategies to limit it.

To limit liability, these cynical methods include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos lawsuit attorneys (simply click the next website page) in the air was not negligent since exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. The claims often involve Talcum, a substance that naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases usually involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma following 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 testimony regarding the coaching memo. Biederman hoped the testimony would shed some light on Budd and Baron's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy. However the trial court refused her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits rose in the following the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation inferno raged for a long time. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because asbestos companies had their headquarters there.

The defendants fought against the plaintiffs' claims. They enlisted scientists to conduct research and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulated their workers by offering them small sums to keep their health problems quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics worked for a short time. However, the truth exploded in the late 1970s when lawyers representing victims came out with the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma, and other conditions.

In the mid-1980s asbestos law firms began to limit the number of clients they accepted. Kazan Law focused on a smaller group seriously ill workers who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' efforts to limit their 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 certain products but to industrial premises in which asbestos was present. The duty to warn was later confirmed in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

In the early 1980s, asbestos lawsuit attorneys many of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This gave them the opportunity to reorganize their businesses through court proceedings and set funds aside to cover future asbestos 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 exposure, it was necessary to show that the victim was at a place of work where asbestos was used. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products lawyers representing plaintiffs. This new rule was the basis for Baron and Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

The victory of Clarence Borel led to the victories of other asbestos victims. However, asbestos companies began to fight back in order to protect their profits. They started attacking victims on many different fronts.

One strategy was to denigrate the evidence of the victims. They claimed that the victims had illnesses caused by multiple exposures to asbestos by multiple employers, not one exposure. This was because companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each had its own unique veterans asbestos lawsuits exposure risks. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma patients rights since it required them to disclose the asbestos-exposure employers of all their employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensation damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was unjust and out of proportion to the harms suffered by each individual victim. asbestos lawsuit settlement amount victims were seeking compensation for their physical, emotional and financial loss. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry because it meant that every company was responsible for paying out huge amounts of money to asbestos victims, even if they did not directly cause their asbestos illness.

Insurers also attempted to limit the ability asbestos victims to recover compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to damages that went beyond their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they grew mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence demonstrated that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos and that mesothelioma symptoms typically develop 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation initiated one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. These attorneys gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also devised a secret coaching process to help their clients target specific defendants. Often, asbestos companies paid them to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trials. An asbestos settlement is an agreement between the victim and asbestos company that ends the legal claim for compensation. The settlement can be reached prior to, during or after the trial and does not have to meet the same standards as jury verdicts.