Thompsons Solicitors' Asbestos Lawsuit History

Thompsons Solicitors has run, and has won more asbestos disease compensation cases than any other law firm. This has been an extremely important aspect of our history.

In the aftermath of a 1973 court decision, asbestos lawsuits exploded and began to take hold. The cases were filed by thousands of plaintiffs who were not impaired.

The First Case

The asbestos lawsuit began in a neoclassical house on Trade Street, in Charlotte's Central Business District. It seems an unlikely place to make legal history, but that's exactly what happened in 1973. It was at this point that a judge was called back to the bench after retiring and began to unravel a how Long does a asbestos lawsuit take (57.biqund.com)-running scheme by plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients to defraud defendant companies and drain bankruptcy trusts.

Asbestos lawsuits have their roots in the law of tort which stipulates that the seller or manufacturer of any product may be held liable for any injury caused by the product if the manufacturer knew or should have been aware of the danger of its use. In the 1950s and 1960s, research revealed asbestos lawyer lawsuit was harmful and could cause lung diseases such as asbestosis, but also a rare cancer known as mesothelioma. The asbestos manufacturers resisted these risks and continued to sell their products.

In the 1970s, scientists developed more precise tests to prove the link 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 decided in 1973.

This case set the precedent for the many asbestos cases to follow. This was the first case that the courts ruled asbestos producers guilty under strict liability. Plaintiffs were not required to prove negligence on the part of the companies, and they could sue multiple manufacturers at once.

The next significant milestone in asbestos lawsuit history occurred in the state of Texas. In 2005 the legislature approved Senate Bill 15. This law required mesothelioma cases, [empty] as well as other asbestos cases to be based on peer reviewed scientific studies, not speculation or suppositions made by hired-gun experts. This was a major advancement in the law and has helped to defuse the firestorm of asbestos litigation.

More recent developments in asbestos litigation include the prosecution of a variety of plaintiffs' attorneys and their firms under RICO, which is a federal law that was designed to catch those who are involved in organized criminal activity. The courts have exposed a concerted effort hide evidence, handle asbestos waste, hide documentation and other similar strategies. This has led to a variety of RICO convictions for defendants and plaintiffs.

The Second Case

Despite the dangers asbestos products could pose for decades, companies continued to place profits before safety. Workers were bribed to keep from speaking out about asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. Tens of thousands of mesothelioma sufferers received damages when the truth was disclosed.

In 1973, a single case set off a blaze of litigation across the country. In the following three decades, tens and thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed. Many of those asbestos lawsuits were filed in the state of Texas that had favorable laws regarding asbestos litigation.

The 1973 court ruling in Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.1 established that asbestos defendants could be held liable for damages when they negligently exposed someone to asbestos and those exposed to asbestos related lawsuits developed an 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 very high bar for asbestos victims which allowed them to recover the full amount of damages from one of their employers, instead of several. Insurance companies quickly realized the benefits of this legal strategy and began to implement strategies to reduce their exposure.

These cynical tactics included altering the definition of "exposure" in order to lessen their liability. They also began to argue that the mere presence of asbestos in the air was not negligent since exposure can come from many sources.

Asbestos litigation is ongoing and new asbestos cases are filed every year. The claims often involve the talcum powder, which naturally contains asbestos fibers. These cases often involve women who were diagnosed with mesothelioma lawyer asbestos cancer lawsuit as a result of their use of talcum powder during the 1970s and 1980s.

Christine Biederman of the Dallas Observer asked a court to open Budd's transcripts of his deposition testimonies regarding the coaching memo in the latter part of 2016. Biederman hoped the testimony would provide some insight into Baron & Budd’s role in the mesothelioma defence plan. However, the trial court denied her request.

The Third Case

Asbestos lawsuits exploded in the wake of the Borel decision in 1973. The litigation inferno raged for a number of years. Many victims developed mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. The majority of the cases were filed in Texas due to favorable laws and because the asbestos companies were headquartered there.

The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' claims. They hired scientists to research and publish papers that bolstered their defenses. They also manipulated their workers by offering them small sums to keep their health issues quiet and urging them to sign confidentiality agreements.

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

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

Lawyers fought back against asbestos companies' efforts to limit their liability. They won a number key legal rulings, including Force v. Director, OWCP (938 F.2d 981). This case proved that the duty to warn applied not just to certain products but also to industrial facilities where asbestos was present. It was later affirmed 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 reorganize themselves in court and set money aside for the future asbestos-related obligations. Sadly, bankruptcy trusts set 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 asbestos exposure to asbestos lawsuit it was sufficient to prove that the victim worked at a site where asbestos was used. This weakened the legal system and made it easier to identify asbestos-containing products for lawyers representing plaintiffs. This new rule was the basis for Baron & Budd’s "coaching memorandum".

The Fourth Case

After the victory of Clarence Borel more asbestos victims won their lawsuits. But asbestos companies began to fight to defend their profits. They started attacking victims on a number of different areas.

One strategy involved attacking the evidence of victims. They claimed that the victims' illnesses were caused by multiple exposures to asbestos by numerous employers and not just a single exposure. This was due to the fact that asbestos was used in numerous products and each product posed the risk of exposure to asbestos in its own way. This was a serious assault on the rights of mesothelioma patients since it required them to identify all their asbestos-exposed employers.

The defendants also began to attack plaintiffs over compensatory damages. They claimed that the amount paid to asbestos victims was too high and out of proportion with the physical injuries that each victim sustained. Asbestos victims sought compensation for their emotional, physical and financial loss. This was a major problem to the insurance sector, since every company was required to pay out large sums of money to asbestos patients 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 weren't entitled to any damages that went beyond the liability insurance coverage provided by their employer at the time they grew mesothelioma. This was despite the fact that medical evidence showed that there was no safe level of asbestos exposure and that mesothelioma symptoms usually occur 10 years after exposure.

Lawyers who specialize in this type litigation initiated one of the most damaging attacks on asbestos victims. They gathered groups plaintiffs and filed them in bulk hoping to overwhelm the court system. They also created a process for secretly instructing their clients to focus on particular defendants. They were often paid by asbestos companies they targeted.

Many asbestos cases were settled before or during trials. A settlement involving asbestos is an agreement between a victim and the asbestos company to stop the legal claim to compensation. The settlement can be reached before, during or after the trial. It does not have to satisfy the same requirements as jury verdicts.