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

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The firm's lawyers are frequently invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise when trying to defend asbestos cases.

Research has shown that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma as well as less serious diseases like asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation establishes a time limit for the time after an accident or injury, the victim is able to start an action. For asbestos, the statute of limitations is different by state and is different from other personal injury cases because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to show up.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation begins on the date of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death cases instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their family members should consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as they can.

There are a variety of aspects to consider when filing an asbestos lawsuit. One of the most important is the statute of limitations. This is the date that the victim has to make a claim by, and failing to do so will result in the case being dismissed. The statute of limitations varies according to state, and the laws differ greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from the time the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

In an asbestos-related case, the defendants will often attempt to use the statute of limitations to defend against liability. They could argue for instance that plaintiffs should have been aware or were aware of their exposure to asbestos and were under a duty of notification to their employer. This is a common argument in mesothelioma lawsuits and it can be difficult to prove for the victim.

Another potential defense in a case involving asbestos is that the defendants didn't have the resources or means to inform the public about the dangers of the product. This is a complex argument that is largely based on the evidence that is available. For example, it was successfully presented in California that the defendants did not have "state-of-the-art" knowledge and could not be expected to provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to make an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim resides. However, there are some situations in which it might be appropriate to file the lawsuit in another state. This usually has to do with the location of the employer, or where the person was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The"bare metal" defense is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. The bare-metal defense claims that, because their products left the plant in bare steel, they did not have a responsibility to warn about the dangers of asbestos containing materials added later by other parties, such as thermal insulating seals and flanges. This defense has been embraced in certain jurisdictions, but it is not a federally-approved option in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed that. The Court rejected the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead, a new standard under which manufacturers are required to warn if it knows that its integrated product will be hazardous for its intended use and has no reason to believe that its final users will be aware of that risk.

This modification in law makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to file claims against manufacturers of equipment. However it's not the end of the road. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence and not brought under federal maritime law statutes such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the asbestos litigation wiki Multi-District Litigation in Philadelphia for instance, a case was remanded back to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in that case was a carpenter who was exposed to switchgear and turbines at the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos litigation group-containing parts.

In the same case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has indicated that he will adopt the third perspective of the defense of bare-metal. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, which included Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case held that the bare-metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will have an impact on how judges use the bare metal defense in other situations, such as those involving state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation can be complex and requires lawyers with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos litigation, such as investigating claims, developing litigation management plans and strategic budgets, identifying and hiring experts, and defending plaintiffs and defendants expert testimony at trials and depositions.

Typically, asbestos cases will require the testimony from medical professionals such as a radiologist or pathologist. They will testify that X-rays and CT scans show the typical scarring of lung tissue due to asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also be a witness to symptoms like breathing difficulties that are similar to those of mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide a detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, such as an examination of the worker's union, tax, and social security records.

An forensic engineering or environmental science expert may be necessary to explain the reason for the asbestos exposure. These experts can help plaintiffs argue that the asbestos class action litigation was not exposed in the workplace and was instead brought home on the clothing of workers or from the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs hire economic loss experts to assess the financial loss suffered by victims. They can estimate the amount of money a person has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on their daily life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that an individual is no longer able to do.

It is essential that defendants challenge the plaintiffs expert witnesses, especially in the event that they have testified on dozens or hundreds of other asbestos claims. Experts can lose credibility with jurors if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, Asbestos Litigation defendants can also seek summary judgement if they can show that the evidence does NOT show that the plaintiff suffered injury due to exposure to the products of the defendant. However the judge will not give summary judgment merely because the defendant has pointed out gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The latency issues involved in asbestos cases means that significant information can be almost impossible. The lag between exposure and the appearance of disease can be measured in decades. To determine the facts upon which to build an argument, it is necessary to review an individual's work history. This usually involves an exhaustive examination of social security, union, tax and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnose. Due to this, the ability of a defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff's symptoms could be due to a different illness than mesothelioma is valuable in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this method to avoid responsibility and receive large awards. However, as the defense bar has evolved the strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This has been particularly evident in federal courts where judges have routinely dismissed such claims based on lack of evidence.

An in-depth analysis of each potential defendant is crucial to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the length and the nature of the exposure, as well as the severity of any diagnosed disease. For example carpenters with mesothelioma is likely to be awarded more damages than someone who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

Asbestos litigation can be a bit complicated and expensive. We help our clients to be aware of the risks associated with this kind of litigation and we collaborate with them to develop internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to find out more about how we can protect your company's interests.