Asbestos Law Firm

An asbestos law firm is one of which the partners and associates specialize in litigation involving asbestos related illnesses.  Because of a corporate mentality that values profit over human life, and because the U.S. Federal government since the early 1980’s has increasingly abdicated its responsibility to protect tax-paying citizens, relying on “free markets” and self-regulation by those same corporate interests, over 100 million people in the U.S. – one-third of the population – have been exposed to potentially lethal levels of asbestos (1). Many of them have limited access to health care, if any, or must sacrifice everything they own in order to pay for treatment.

Because of this complete disregard for human life by corporations and the government that should have been regulating them, the number of cancer cases – particularly mesothelioma – has increased exponentially. Once a rare condition that ancient Greek physician Hippocrates named karkinos after sea crabs,  cancer in one form or another is estimated to strike as many as one in four Americans.

This in turn has led to an explosion of litigation as victims of corporate negligence attempt to recover medical expenses, lost wages and compensation for pain and suffering for those ultimately responsible. Asbestos law firms are those in which the partners have decided to focus on asbestos related cases.

The Background of Asbestos Litigation

Although the dangers of asbestos exposure had been confirmed by around 1940, the first lawsuit was not filed until over a quarter-century later. On 10 December 1966, former Johns-Manville employee Clyde Tomplait filed a complaint against his former employer and ten other corporations involved in the manufacture and use of asbestos. In the complaint, Tomplait alleged that the defendants had known about the hazards, and had failed to issue a proper warning. “Failure to warn” became a major element in asbestos litigation for the next forty years.

Tompait’s attorney, Ward Stephenson, also represented a co-worker, Clarence Borel in another action filed in October of 1969. In addition to the element of “failure to warn,” the Borel suit alleged that the defendants had failed to remove their products from the market when they were determined to be hazardous (2).

A representative for one of the defendants in the Borel case, Johns-Manville’s accident-prevention manager Clifford Scheckler, claimed that he had not heard about the connection between asbestos and respiratory disease prior to 1964; therefore, the company could not be held liable for the illness of workers exposed prior to that time. Despite this claim, attorney Stephenson was able to win both the Borel case and the appeal that came afterwards (3).

Nonetheless, Scheckler’s claim of ignorance became a standard defense in the years following the Borel case, and often prevailed over the “failure to warn” claim. Then, in 1977, New Jersey attorney Karl Asch discovered a company annual report that in turn, led to the discovery of documents showing that the industry had had full knowledge of the dangers of asbestos since the late 1930s – knowledge that had been deliberately and willfully hidden from the public. Not only did this discovery destroy the industry’s “state of the art” claim of ignorance defense, it opened the door to an additional hundreds of thousands cases (4).

Asbestos Litigation Today

Between 1977 and 2003, some six hundred thousand lawsuits have been filed against the industry, and with the re-birth of the Progressive movement in the U.S. and increasing public backlash against decades of corporate abuse, malfeasance and involvement in government, more and more examples of industry cover-ups are being exposed on a regular, ongoing basis.

Over the past thirty years, asbestos litigation has resulted in the bankruptcy of seventy U.S. companies. Starting in 2003, the U.S. Senate, at the behest of industry lobbyists, attempted to pass legislation to protect the asbestos industry by denying victims the right to sue the companies. Instead, a federal “trust fund” would be set up from which asbestos claims would be paid. The latest legislative proposal was defeated in 2006 (5).

The laws governing torts (civil actions), under which asbestos litigation falls, can be complex. Different states have different statutes, and important elements, such as the burden of proof, may be more rigorous or demanding in some states than in others. This is why it is worthwhile to engage an asbestos law firm. These attorneys have made it a priority to keep up with the latest research, legal opinions and case law involving mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Several law firms maintain massive databases of information related to virtually every aspect of the asbestos industry.

This last point is vitally important. In many cases, it is important to identify not only where asbestos exposure took place and under what conditions, but also the original manufacturer of the substance or product in question. Despite numerous bankruptcies, many of these corporations were acquired and merged with other corporations; in such cases, a parent company may be held liable. For example, as of 2000, Halliburton had paid out nearly $100 million to settle over a asbestos suits against the company’s subsidiaries (6).

Choosing An Asbestos Law Firm

When considering taking legal action, it is wise to visit several different law firms, interview the attorneys, and investigate their records. How many cases have they won? How many have been settled out-of-court? Have there been any complaints against members of the firm? How many years experience do theses attorneys have? Will they take a case on a contingency basis? These are excellent questions to ask when meeting with an asbestos attorney.

Although searching online will bring up over two million hits on search engines, the best place to start is your state’s bar association. They can refer you to a number of qualified, reputable asbestos law firms in your area.   

'Asbestos Law Firm' Resources:

Notes

  1. Bowker, Michael. Fatal Deception, pp. 17-18
  2. Op. cit., pp.162-163
  3. Op. cit., p. 165
  4. Op. cit., pp. 165-167
  5. "Senate Defeats Asbestos Trust-Fund Legislation." The Washington Times, 15 February 2006, A03
  6. “Cheney’s Firm Backed Bill To Limit Asbestos Liability.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 August 2000.

Sources

  1. Bowker, Michael. Fatal Deception. (New York: Touchstone, 2003)
  2. Hurt, Charles. "Senate Defeats Asbestos Trust-Fund Legislation," The Washington Times, 15 February 2006, A03
  3. Schneider, Andrew and Lise Oleson.  “Cheney’s Firm Backed Bill To Limit Asbestos Liability.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 August 2000.