Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

A 1973 court ruling set off an uproar in asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of non-impaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a limestone neoclassical building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to create legal history however, that's exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able uncover a long-running scheme that was used to defraud defendants, asbestos lawsuit history and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law, which stipulates that a company is liable for any injury caused by a product if it were aware or ought to be aware of the dangers associated with its use. In the 1950s and 1960s, studies showed that asbestos was harmful and could cause lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also a rare type of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied these risks and continued sell their products.

In the 1970s, researchers had developed more accurate tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos and illness. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. The first case to gain significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. It was filed in 1969 and ruled in 1973.

This case set the stage for many of the other asbestos cases to come. It was the first time the courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal doctrine of strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could also sue multiple manufacturers at once.

The next major milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state Texas. In 2005, the legislature in Texas passed Senate Bill 15. Senate Bill 15 This law required that mesothelioma as well as other asbestos cases be determined by peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of supposition and conjecture from hired gun experts. This was a major advancement in the law and has helped to stop the raging asbestos litigation.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have led to the prosecution of a number of plaintiffs lawyers and their companies under RICO. This is a federal statute designed to catch those who are involved in organized crime. The courts have revealed a concerted effort to conceal evidence, mishandle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar strategies. This has led to numerous RICO convictions for defendants as well as plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits over safety. They even paid workers to keep quiet about the dangers of asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma patients were compensated when the truth was exposed.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a national litigation firestorm. 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 Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 found asbestos defendants could be held liable if they negligently expose a person to asbestos cancer lawsuit mesothelioma settlement and that this person develops an asbestos-related illness. This case shifted asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and instead towards the actions of the company. It set the stage for mass torts, which continue to this day.

The case also set high standards for asbestos victims. This allowed them to claim their entire damages from just one employer, rather than multiple employers. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal method and began to implement strategies to reduce their exposure.

These cynical tactics 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 because exposure can occur from various sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and there are new asbestos cases 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 after using talcum powder during the 1970s and 80s.

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 believed that the testimony could provide some insight into Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence strategy. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the wake of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation saga raged for a number of years. Many victims suffered from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws and the asbestos companies are headquartered there.

The defendants fought back against plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to research and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also manipulated their workers by offering them small sums to keep their health problems at bay and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics were successful for a short period of time. The truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers representing victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless conduct of asbestos company executives. Thousands of asbestos workers were able to sue asbestos manufacturers for Asbestos Lawsuit History mesothelioma, and related conditions.

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

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

Several of the largest asbestos producers filed for bankruptcy in the early 1980s. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize themselves in court and set money aside for future asbestos obligations. However the trusts set up in bankruptcy by these companies are 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 utilized. This weakened the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to determine their clients with asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the reason for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

After the victory of Clarence Borel more asbestos victims were able to win their lawsuits. But asbestos companies started to fight to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy involved attacking the evidence of victims. They claimed that the diseases of the victims were a result of multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in numerous products and each product posed an asbestos exposure risk. This was a major attack on mesothelioma patients' rights because it required them to identify the asbestos-exposure employers of all their employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They argued that the amount awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and out of proportion to the harms suffered by each victim. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their emotional, financial and physical injuries. This posed a major challenge to the insurance industry as each company was required to pay large amounts of money to asbestos sufferers even if they did not cause their asbestos-related lawsuit illness.

Insurers also attempted to restrict the right of asbestos victims to recover compensation by claiming that they were not entitled to damages beyond the level of their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they developed their mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence proved that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma-related symptoms typically occur 10 years after exposure.

One of the most destructive attacks on asbestos lawsuit attorney victims came from lawyers who specialized in this kind of litigation. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs and filed them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also created a process to secretly coach their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid by asbestos firms they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled before or during trials. An asbestos settlement is a contract between the victim and asbestos lawsuit attorney company that ends a legal claim of compensation. It may be reached prior to, during or after a trial, and is not subject to the same requirements as a jury verdict.