Notes

10 Untrue Answers To Common Asbestos Lawsuit Questions Do You Know The Right Ones?
Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and received more compensation claims for asbestosis than any other law firm. 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 lawsuit was initiated in a neoclassical house on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It's a strange place to record legal history, but that's exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this time that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retirement and began to unravel a long-running scheme used by plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients to defraud defendant companies and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits are rooted in the law of tort, which states that a seller or manufacturer of any product can be held accountable for any injury caused by the product if it knew or should have been aware of the dangers of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved asbestos was a danger and linked not only to lung disease like asbestosis but also to a rare form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Asbestos manufacturers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists had developed more accurate tests that proved the connection between asbestos and disease. This resulted in a dramatic rise 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 decided in 1973.

This case was a precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. It was the first time courts ruled that asbestos manufacturers could be found guilty under the legal doctrine of strict liability. It was not necessary for plaintiffs to prove the companies had been negligent, and it allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at the same time.

The next significant event in the history of asbestos lawsuits occurred in the state Texas. In 2005, the legislature in Texas passed Senate Bill 15 The law required mesothelioma cases, as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, and not speculation or suppositions made by hired-gun experts. This was a major change in the law, which helped reduce the rumblings of asbestos lawsuits.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation have included the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' attorneys as well as their companies under RICO, which is a federal law designed to catch those involved in organized crime. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, mishandle and discard asbestos waste, hide documents and other similar tactics have been exposed by the courts, which has led to numerous RICO convictions for both 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 ahead of safety. Workers were bribed to remain from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. asbestos lawsuit payouts of thousands of mesothelioma patients were compensated when the truth was finally disclosed.

In 1973, one case ignited a firestorm of litigation across the nation. In the subsequent three decades, tens of thousands of asbestos lawsuits were filed. Many of asbestos lawsuits were filed in Texas which has favorable laws for asbestos litigation.

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

The case also set a new standard for asbestos victims, which allowed them to seek the full amount of damages from one of their employers, rather than a number of. Insurance companies quickly recognized the potential of this legal method and began to implement strategies to limit their exposure.

These cynical tactics included altering the definition of "exposure" in order to limit their liability. They also began to argue the mere presence asbestos in the air didn't constitute negligence since exposure can be triggered by a variety of sources.


Asbestos litigation is ongoing and there are always new asbestos cases filed every year. These cases often involve the talcum powder, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases typically involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma 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 the final months of 2016. Biederman believed that the testimony could shed some light on Budd and Baron's role in the mesothelioma defense strategy. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits rose in the aftermath of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation saga raged for years. Many victims developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws, and asbestos-related companies are located in Texas.

The defendants fought the plaintiffs claims. They hired scientists to conduct research and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulated 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 representing victims came out with the Sumner Simpson papers and the inhumane behavior of asbestos company executives. Asbestos producers were sued by thousands of workers for mesothelioma as well as other ailments.

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

Lawyers fought asbestos companies in their attempts to limit liability. They won a number important 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 also to industrial facilities in which asbestos was present. It was later affirmed in the case of Jeromson in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

Several of the largest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This gave them the chance to organize themselves in court and put money aside to cover future asbestos liabilities. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts put up by these companies still pay asbestos-related damages.

Defendants also tried to use the exposure-equals-causation rule as a defense in asbestos lawsuits. To prove exposure, it was sufficient to show the victim worked at a place of work where asbestos was utilized. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' lawyers to determine their clients who were asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for the Baron & Budd's "coaching memo".

The Fourth Case

Clarence Borel's victory paved the way for the victories of other asbestos victims. But asbestos companies began to fight back to protect their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to challenge the evidence of victims. They claimed that the victims suffered from illnesses that were the result of multiple exposures to asbestos by multiple employers, not one exposure. It was because asbestos was used in numerous products, and each one posed an asbestos exposure risk. This was a significant attack on mesothelioma victims' rights because they were required to list all asbestos-exposured employers.

Defendants also began to attack plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount awarded asbestos victims was excessive and out of proportion with the suffering each victim endured. Asbestos victims demanded compensation for their emotional, financial and physical injuries. This was a major challenge to the insurance industry because it meant that each company was accountable for paying large sums of money to asbestos victims, even if they did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurance companies also tried to limit the ability of asbestos victims to receive compensation by arguing that they were not entitled to any damages beyond the level of the liability insurance coverage of their employer at the time they were diagnosed with mesothelioma. Medical evidence shows that there is no safe asbestos exposure level and that mesothelioma-related symptoms usually manifest 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this kind of litigation initiated one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. These lawyers gathered large groups of plaintiffs to file cases in bulk, hoping the court system would be overwhelmed. They also devised a secret coaching method to help their clients target particular defendants. Often, asbestos companies paid the attorneys to do this.

Many asbestos cases were settled before or during trial. A settlement involving asbestos is a deal between a victim and an asbestos company to settle a legal claim for compensation. It may be reached prior to or after a trial. It is not subject to the same requirements as a jury verdict.

Homepage: https://www.lawsuitasbestos.top/