Notes

Do You Think You're Suited For Doing Asbestos Lawsuit? Take This Quiz
Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors have handled and secured more compensation claims relating to asbestosis than any other law firms. This has been an important part of our past.

Following the 1973 court ruling, a firestorm of asbestos lawsuits began to take hold. The cases were filed by thousands of plaintiffs who were not affected.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit was initiated in a neoclassical house 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 site of a legal landmark. It was at this time that a judge resurfaced on the bench after retirement and began to unravel a decades-old scheme of plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to extort defendants and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos suits are rooted in tort law which states that a business could be held accountable for any injury caused by a product if it were aware or ought to have been aware of the dangers of its use. The research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s proved asbestos's dangers and linked not only to lung disease like asbestosis but also to a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos producers denied the risks and continued to sell their products.

By the 1970s, researchers had created more precise tests that proved the connection between asbestos and health. This led to a dramatic increase in asbestos related lawsuits. The first case that gained significant legal recognition was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. It was filed in 1969 and ruled in 1973.

This case set the tone for a lot of other asbestos cases that will follow. This was the first case in which courts ruled asbestos producers guilty of strict liability. It was not required for plaintiffs to prove the companies had been negligent, and it allowed victims to sue several manufacturers at once.

Texas was the next state to reach an important milestone in asbestos litigation history. In 2005, the Texas legislature passed 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 significant change in the law that helped calm the firestorm of asbestos lawsuits.

Recent developments in asbestos litigation have included the prosecution of a few of plaintiffs' lawyers and their companies under RICO which is a federal law crafted to catch those who are involved in organized criminal activity. The concerted efforts to conceal evidence, mishandle and discard asbestos waste, conceal documents and other similar tactics have been exposed by the courts, which has led to several RICO convictions for both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

The Second Case

Despite asbestos companies being aware of the dangers of their products for decades and decades, they put profits ahead of safety. Workers were bribed into keeping secret about asbestos-related illnesses, like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma victims received damages when the truth was finally exposed.

In 1973, a single case led to a storm of litigation across the nation. In the following three decades, tens and 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 ruling Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 found that asbestos defendants can be held liable when they negligently expose the person to asbestos, and this person develops an asbestos-related disease. This case shifted the focus of asbestos litigation away from the individual worker to the company's actions and set the stage for the mass tort system that continues today.

The case also set a very high standard for asbestos victims, which allowed them to claim full damages from just one of their employers, instead of several. Insurance companies recognized the benefits of a legal strategy to limit exposure to asbestos and began employing strategies to limit the 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 did not constitute negligence, as exposure can come from a variety of sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and there are new asbestos cases being filed each year. In some cases these cases, the plaintiffs are suing talcum powder, which contains asbestos fibers naturally occurring in the environment. These cases usually involve women who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma due to their use of talcum powder in the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer requested that a court unseal Budd's transcript of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in the final months of 2016. Biederman hoped the testimony would shed some light on Budd and Baron's role in the mesothelioma defence plan. However the trial court rejected her request.

The Third Case

In the wake of the 1973 Borel decision, asbestos lawsuits began to grow. The litigation saga continued for a number of years. Many victims were diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. Texas has favorable laws, and the asbestos companies are located in Texas.

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 secret and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

These strategies worked for a while. The truth came out in the late 1970s, when lawyers for the victims released the Sumner Simpson documents and exposed the ruthless conduct of asbestos company executives. Asbestos manufacturers were sued by thousands of workers who were suffering from mesothelioma, and other conditions.


By the mid-1980s, asbestos law firms started to limit the number of clients that they accepted. Kazan Law focused on a smaller number of seriously ill workers with medical evidence of asbestos exposure.

Lawyers fought back against the asbestos companies' attempts to limit their liability. They won a number key legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case established the requirement to warn, not just for specific products, but also for industrial premises which contained asbestos. It was later upheld in the case of Jeromson in the case of Jeromson v Thompsons Solicitors (unreported).

Many of the biggest asbestos manufacturers declared bankruptcy in the beginning of the 1980s. This allowed them to organize in court and put money aside to pay for future asbestos-related obligations. Unfortunately, bankruptcy trusts put by these companies continue to 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 necessary to prove that the victim worked at a place of work where asbestos was used. This affected the legal process and made it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to identify their clients' asbestos-containing products. This new rule was the basis for Baron and Budd's "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

Following the victory of Clarence Borel, more asbestos victims won their cases. But asbestos companies began to fight for their profits. They began attacking victims from various angles.

One strategy was to attack evidence from 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. It was because asbestos was used in a variety of products and each product posed an asbestos exposure risk. This was a serious attack on the rights of mesothelioma sufferers, as it required them identify all their asbestos-exposed employers.

Defense lawyers also began to challenge plaintiffs on the issue of compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount they awarded to asbestos victims was excessive and out of proportion to the harms suffered by each victim. Asbestos sufferers were seeking compensation for their physical, emotional and financial loss. This presented a major problem to the insurance industry as it meant that each company was responsible for paying out large amounts of money to asbestos victims even if the companies did not directly cause their asbestos-related illness.

Insurance companies also attempted to limit asbestos victims' right to receive compensation by claiming that the insurance coverage of their employers was sufficient at the time of the mesothelioma's development. Medical evidence shows that there is no asbestos exposure limit that is safe and that symptoms of mesothelioma usually appear 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type of litigation initiated one of the most destructive attacks on asbestos victims. These attorneys gathered groups of plaintiffs and filed them in large numbers, hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also developed a secret coaching process to help their clients target specific defendants. In many cases asbestos companies paid for this.

Many asbestos cases were settled prior to or during trial. An asbestos settlement is a contract between the victim and the asbestos company that ends the legal claim for compensation. It can be reached prior to or after a trial. It is not subject to the same conditions as the verdict of a jury.

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