Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and asbestos exposure Lawsuit settlements won more asbestos disease compensation cases than any other law firm. This has been a crucial part of our past.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision asbestos lawsuits in a blaze took hold. The lawsuits were filed by a multitude of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical structure located on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's not a likely location to record legal history, however, this is exactly what happened in 1973. A retired judge was able to uncover a long-standing scheme to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law, which stipulates that a company is liable for any harm caused by a product if it were aware or ought to have been aware of the dangers of its use. In the 1950s, and 1960s, research showed asbestos was harmful and was linked to not just lung diseases such as asbestosis but also a rare cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied these risks and continued sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists created more precise tests to prove the link between asbestos and illness. This led to an 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 precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. It was the first time courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found to be guilty under the legal doctrine of strict liability. Plaintiffs did not have to prove negligence on the part of the companies and they could sue multiple manufacturers at once.

The next significant event in the history of asbestos lawsuits occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005, the legislature of Texas approved Senate Bill 15 The law required mesothelioma cases as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, rather than conjecture or supposition by hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law that helped stop the furore of asbestos lawsuits.

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

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 bribed workers to hide their exposure to asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers received damages when the truth was finally revealed.

In 1973, one case led to a storm of litigation across the nation. In the decades that followed the tens of thousands of veterans asbestos lawsuits lawsuits were filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws regarding asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants can be held liable when they negligently expose the person to asbestos and that this person develops an asbestos-related disease. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation from the individual worker to the actions of the company and laid the foundation for the mass tort system that is still in place today.

The case also set a very high bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to seek full damages from just one of their employers rather than several. Insurers realized the potential of a legal method to limit asbestos exposure and began using strategies to limit it.

To limit liability, these cynical tactics include changing the definition of "exposure". 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 is ongoing and there are new asbestos cases being filed each year. In certain instances these cases, the plaintiffs are suing talcum powder, which contains asbestos fibers that naturally occur. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder during the 1970s and 1980s.

In late 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman, asked a judge to reveal the transcript of Budd's deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo. Biederman believed that the testimony could provide some insight into Budd and Baron's role in the mesothelioma defence plan. However, the trial court denied her request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits began to increase in volume. The litigation war raged for many years. Many victims developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws and asbestos companies have headquartered there.

The defendants fought the plaintiffs claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers to support their defenses. They also used manipulation to influence employees, paying them small amounts to keep their health issues secret and urging employees to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies worked for a short period of time. The truth came out in the late 1970s when lawyers for the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the brutal conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from 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 employees who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought against asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They won a number important legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn referred not only to specific products but also to industrial facilities in which asbestos was present. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

A number of the biggest asbestos exposure Lawsuit settlements producers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This allowed them the opportunity to organize themselves through court proceedings and set funds aside for future asbestos obligations. However, 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 military asbestos lawsuit lawsuits. To prove asbestos exposure, it was enough to prove that the victim worked in a location that used asbestos. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for plaintiffs' lawyers. 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. But asbestos companies began fight back to defend their profits. They began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy was to challenge the evidence of the victims. They claimed that victims suffered from illnesses that were the result of multiple exposures to asbestos by many employers and not one exposure. This was because companies used asbestos in a variety of their products, and each had its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma sufferers, because it required them to disclose the asbestos-exposed employers of their.

The defendants also began attacking plaintiffs over compensatory 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 emotional, financial and physical injuries. This was a major challenge to the insurance industry as it meant that each business was responsible for paying out large amounts of money to asbestos victims, even if the companies did not directly cause their asbestos disease.

Insurance companies also attempted to limit asbestos victims' ability to receive compensation, arguing that the insurance coverage provided by their employer was sufficient at the time of mesothelioma's onset. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure level and that mesothelioma symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

One of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims came 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 developed a method to secretly coach their clients to target particular defendants. They were often paid by asbestos firms they targeted.

Although some cases were brought to trial, many victims were able to settle with asbestos companies before or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company to stop a legal claim for compensation. The settlement may be reached during, before or after the trial, and does not need to satisfy the same requirements as jury verdicts.