Notes

Asbestos Lawsuit: What's No One Has Discussed
Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

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

A 1973 court ruling set off a firestorm in asbestos lawsuits. Thousands of cases were filed on behalf of uninjured plaintiffs.

The First Case

The asbestos-related story began in a neoclassical limestone building on Trade Street in Charlotte's Central Business District. It seems an unlikely place to record legal history, however, it was exactly the case in 1973. A retired judge was able discover a long-running scheme to defraud defendants, and also deplete bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits have their roots in the law of tort which stipulates that the seller or manufacturer of any product can be held liable for any harm caused by the product if the company knew or should have known the dangers of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s showed asbestos was a danger and could be linked to lung disease like asbestosis but also to a rare type of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers resisted the dangers and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had created more precise tests to prove the connection between asbestos-related illnesses and asbestos. 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 was decided in 1973.

This case set the stage for a lot of asbestos cases to follow. This was the first instance in which courts ruled asbestos producers guilty under strict liability. Plaintiffs did not have to prove negligence on the part of the company, and they could also sue multiple manufacturers at once.

Texas was the next state to achieve the landmark in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the legislature passed Senate Bill 15. The law required mesothelioma cases and other asbestos cases be founded on peer-reviewed scientific research instead of conjecture and supposition from hired gun experts. This was a major advance 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 firms, under RICO. This is a federal statute that was created to deter those involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort to cover up evidence, improperly handle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar strategies. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions, both for defendants and claimants.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos manufacturers knowing the dangers of their products for decades but they remained focused on profits over safety. Workers were bribed to keep from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. When the truth finally emerged the tens of thousands of victims were awarded damages in mesothelioma lawsuits.

In 1973, a single instance set off a blaze of litigation throughout the United States. In the years that followed, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. A large portion of these asbestos lawsuits were brought in Texas, a state with favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

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

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

To limit liability, these cynical methods include changing the definition of "exposure". They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air wasn't negligent, as exposure could occur from many sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing, and there are always new asbestos cases filed each year. In some instances these cases, the plaintiffs are suing talcum powder, which contains naturally-occurring asbestos fibers. These cases often involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested a court to open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimony regarding the coaching memo in late 2016. Biederman was hoping that the testimony would provide insight into Baron and Budd's involvement in the mesothelioma defense strategy However, the trial court denied the 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 diseases. Texas has favorable laws and asbestos-related companies are located in Texas.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to research and publish papers supporting their defenses. They also manipulated employees, paying small amounts to keep their health concerns quiet and encouraging employees to sign confidentiality agreements.

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

By the mid-1980s asbestos law firms began to restrict the number of clients that they would accept. Kazan Law focused on a smaller group seriously ill workers who had medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought against asbestos companies in their efforts to limit liability. They were successful in a variety of important legal rulings including Force v. Director OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the duty to warn not just for specific products but also for industrial premises that contained asbestos raw. The case of Jeromson against Thompsons Solicitors was upheld later (unreported).

In the early 1980s, many of the largest asbestos producers declared bankruptcy. This allowed them to reorganize in court and set money aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. However, the bankruptcy trusts created by these companies are paying asbestos-related damages to the present.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was necessary to prove that the victim worked at a place of work where asbestos was employed. This affected the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for lawyers representing plaintiffs. This new rule was the basis for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory paved the way for the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies started to fight for their profits. asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit began attacking victims from different angles.

One strategy involved attacking the evidence of victims. They claimed that the ailments of victims were caused by multiple asbestos exposures by a variety of employers, and not just one exposure. This was due to the fact that companies employed asbestos in a variety of their products, and each had its particular asbestos exposure risks. This was a grave attack on the rights of mesothelioma patients as it required them identify all asbestos-exposed employers.

Defense lawyers also began to challenge plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They asserted that the amount paid to asbestos victims was unjust and insufficient to the harms suffered by each victim. Asbestos victims were seeking compensation for their emotional, financial and physical damages. This was a major problem for the insurance industry, as each company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos victims even if they did not cause their asbestos illness.

Insurers also tried to limit the ability of asbestos victims to claim compensation by claiming that they were not entitled to any damages that were beyond the amount of their employer's liability insurance coverage at the time they grew mesothelioma. Medical evidence suggests that there is no safe asbestos exposure and that symptoms of mesothelioma typically appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation have launched one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered large numbers of plaintiffs to file them in large quantities, hoping that the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a system for secretly instructing their clients to target particular defendants, and they were often paid by the asbestos companies they targeted.

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

Here's my website: https://www.lawsuitasbestos.top/