• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as an industry leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos cases.

Research has demonstrated that exposure to asbestos can lead to lung disease and damage. This includes mesothelioma, as other lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural region.

Statute of Limitations

In the majority of personal injury claims, a statute limits the time period after which a victim can file a claim. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different from other personal injury cases because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take years to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitation clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death in wrongful death cases) rather than at the date of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their family members must consult an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When you file a asbestos lawsuit, there are many factors that must be considered. The statute of limitations is among the most important. The statute of limitations is the deadline by which the victim must start a lawsuit. Failure to file a lawsuit could result in the lawsuit being barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit is different from state to state and the laws differ widely. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the date of diagnosis.

In asbestos cases, the defendants will often try to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. They may say for instance that the plaintiffs should have known or knew about their exposure to asbestos and were under the obligation of notifying their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma cases and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the means or resources to warn of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complex case and relies on the evidence available. For instance, it was successfully presented in California that defendants didn't have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it's better to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state in which the victim lives. However, there are some circumstances where it may be beneficial to file the lawsuit in a different state. This usually has to do with the place of the employer, or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare-metal" defense is a method used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that, because their products left the factory as bare steel, they did not have a duty to warn about the dangers of asbestos-containing products later added by other parties, for instance thermal insulating seals and Return to Full Page flanges. This defense has been embraced in certain states, but it's not available under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped the law. The Court has rejected the bright-line rule of manufacturers and instead established an obligation for the manufacturer to notify customers when they are aware that their product is dangerous for its intended use and have no reason to believe that the users who purchase the product will realize this risk.

This modification in law will make it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However it's not the end of the road. First, the DeVries decision what is asbestos litigation not applicable to state-law claims that are made on the basis of negligence or strict liability, and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, including the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the Asbestos Multi District Litigation in Philadelphia, for example, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine if the state recognizes this defense. The deceased plaintiff in this claim was a carpenter who had been exposed to turbines, switchgear and other asbestos-containing components at the Texaco refinery.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has stated that he'll take a different view of the defense of bare metal. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third-party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges use the bare metal defense in other contexts like those that involve state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

asbestos exposure litigation litigation is a complex affair and requires attorneys with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing top experts. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation cases litigation, including investigating claims, creating strategies for managing litigation and budgets, identifying and bringing in experts and defending plaintiffs as well as defendants with expert testimony in depositions and trials.

Most asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals like a radioologist or pathologist. They can confirm that X-rays as well as CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist may also provide evidence of symptoms, such as breathing difficulties and coughing, which are similar to symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a full details of the work performed by the plaintiff, such as a review of job, union, tax, and social security records.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist to determine the cause of exposure to asbestos. These experts can help defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at the workplace and instead was ingested on workers' clothing or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts from the field to assess the financial losses incurred by the victims. They can estimate the amount of money a victim lost as a result of their illness and asbestos litigation its impact on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills and the price of hiring a person to take care of household chores that a person cannot perform anymore.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially when they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. Experts may lose credibility before jurors when their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants may also request summary judgment when they can prove that the evidence does not prove that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However a judge won't give summary judgment merely because the defendant cites weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make an accurate discovery. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in years. Therefore, determining the facts on which to build a case will require a thorough examination of an individual's entire work history. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's social security, tax and union financial documents, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious diseases like asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Because of this the ability of a defendant to show that a plaintiff's symptoms may be caused by a different disease other than mesothelioma can be beneficial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and obtain large amounts of money. As the defense bar has evolved and the courts have generally rejected this strategy. This has been particularly relevant in federal courts, where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is crucial to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating the severity and duration of the disease as well as the nature of the exposure. For instance, a carpenter who has mesothelioma will likely be awarded higher damages than a person who has only had asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team defends asbestos-related litigation for product manufacturers distributors and suppliers contractors, employers, and property owners. Our lawyers have served as National Trial and National Coordination Counsel and are frequently appointed as liaison counsel by courts to manage asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this kind of litigation and we assist them to create internal programs that will proactively identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how we can protect your company's interests.