Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

A 1973 court ruling sparked an explosion of asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of unimpaired plaintiffs.

The First Case

The story of asbestos litigation began in a limestone neoclassical 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. It was at this point that a judge resurfaced on the bench after his retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme by plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits are rooted in the tort law which states that a seller or manufacturer of any product may be held responsible for any harm caused by the product if the manufacturer knew or should have been aware of the dangers associated with its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated that asbestos was dangerous and linked not only to lung diseases like asbestosis, but also to a rare type of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos producers resisted the dangers and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had developed more accurate tests that confirmed the connection between asbestos and illness. This resulted in 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 the year 1969 and was ruled on in 1973.

This case set the precedent for the many other asbestos cases that will follow. It was the first time that 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 that the companies been negligent, and it allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at one time.

The next major landmark in the history of asbestos lawsuits occurred in the state Texas. In 2005, the legislature in Texas approved Senate Bill 15 The law required that mesothelioma as well as other asbestos cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of speculation and conjecture from hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law and has helped stop the raging asbestos litigation.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation have included the prosecution of a variety of plaintiffs' attorneys and their companies under RICO, which is a federal law that was designed to catch those involved in organized criminal activity. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, conceal and dispose of asbestos waste, conceal documents, and other similar methods have been exposed by courts, resulting in a number of RICO convictions for defendants and claimants alike.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos producers being aware of the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits over safety. Workers were bribed into keeping from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma patients were awarded compensation when the truth was finally revealed.

One incident in 1973 provided the spark that ignited a nationwide litigation firestorm. In the subsequent three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of these asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws for asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer mesothelioma settlement litigation.

The 1973 court ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants can be held liable when they negligently expose a person to asbestos, and this person develops an military asbestos lawsuit-related disease. This case shifted asbestos litigation away from the individual worker and instead towards the actions of the company. It opened the way for mass torts that continue to this day.

The case also set a new bar for asbestos victims, which allowed them to claim full damages from just one of their employers, rather than several. Insurers quickly realized the potential of this legal strategy and started to employ tactics to limit their exposure.

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 negligent since exposure can come from various sources.

Asbestos litigation continues to be ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed each year. In some cases, these claims involve the use of talcum powder, which is a source of asbestos fibers naturally occurring in the environment. These cases often involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

In the last quarter of 2016, a journalist with the Dallas Observer, Christine Biederman, asked a judge to unseal the transcript of Budd's deposition testimony on the coaching memo. Biederman hoped that the testimony would shed light on Baron & Budd's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy, but the trial court rejected the request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits rose in the aftermath of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation war raged for many years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit; Read More Listed here, or other asbestos lawsuit lawyers-related illnesses. The majority of cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws, and also because asbestos companies had their headquarters in Texas.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claims. They employed scientists to study and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulate employees by paying them small amounts to keep their health concerns quiet and encouraging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These tactics worked for a short time. However, the truth exploded in the late 1970s, when lawyers for the victims revealed the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos executives of the company. Many workers were in a position to sue asbestos producers for mesothelioma and other related ailments.

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

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

In the early 1980s, several of the biggest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them the opportunity to reorganize themselves in court and set money aside for the future asbestos-related liabilities. However the trusts in bankruptcy 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 asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was necessary to show the victim worked at a place of work where asbestos was employed. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to identify their clients with asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

After Clarence Borel's victory, [empty] asbestos victims also won their cases. But asbestos companies began to fight back in order to ensure their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to attack victims' evidence. They claimed that victims had illnesses caused by multiple exposures to asbestos from numerous employers and not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in many products and each had an asbestos exposure risk. This was a major attack on mesothelioma sufferers rights since it required them to disclose all of their asbestos-exposured employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos lawsuit payouts victims was unreasonable and insufficient to the injuries that each victim suffered. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their physical, emotional and financial losses. This presented a significant challenge for the insurance industry, as each company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos sufferers even if they were not the cause of their asbestos illness.

Insurance companies also tried to restrict the right of asbestos victims to claim compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to damages that were beyond the amount of the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence indicates that there is no safe asbestos exposure level and asbestos cancer lawsuit lawyer Mesothelioma settlement that symptoms of mesothelioma usually appear 10 years after exposure.

One of the most devastating attacks against asbestos victims came from lawyers who specialized in this kind of litigation. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs to file them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also developed a method to secretly coach their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid to do so by the asbestos companies they targeted.

Although some cases were brought to trial, the majority of victims were able to settle with asbestos companies before or during the trial. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between the victim and asbestos company which ends a legal claim of compensation. The settlement may be reached before, during or after the trial. It does not need to meet the same requirements as jury verdicts.