"Ask Me Anything " 10 Responses To Your Questions About Asbestos Litigation Defense

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation wiki litigation. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also well-versed in the myriad of issues that arise in trying to defend asbestos cases.

Research has proved that asbestos exposure causes lung damage and diseases. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and pleural plaques.

Statute of limitations

In the majority of personal injury cases the statute of limitations establishes a time limit for how long after an accident or injury, the victim is able to bring an action. In asbestos class action litigation cases, the statute of limitations differs by state. They also differ from other personal injury claims since asbestos-related illnesses may take years to be apparent.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation clock starts on the date of diagnosis, or death in the case of wrongful death instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their families should consult a reputable New York mesothelioma lawyer as early as is possible.

When filing an asbestos lawsuit, there are a variety of aspects that must be considered. The statute of limitations is one of the most crucial. This is the date that the victim has to submit the lawsuit by, and failure to do so will result in the case 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.

During an asbestos case when the defendants often attempt to use the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For instance, they could claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure and therefore were required to inform their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma lawsuits and isn't easy for the victim to prove.

Another potential defense in an asbestos case is that the defendants didn't have the resources or means to warn of the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument and largely depends on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully claimed that defendants were not equipped with "state-ofthe-art" information and were not able to give adequate warnings.

In general, it is best to start an asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim lives. In certain situations it might be beneficial to make a claim in a different state than the victim's. This is usually to be related to the location of the employer or where the worker was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a typical strategy used by manufacturers of equipment in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products left the factory as raw metal, they were under no duty to warn of the risks of Asbestos Litigation Group (Http://Go.Xxxfetishforum.Com/)-containing products added by other parties later for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is a common one in some jurisdictions but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped the law. The Court did not accept the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead created an entirely new standard that states that a manufacturer has a duty to inform consumers if they know that its product is likely to be dangerous for its intended use and has no reason to believe that its final customers will be aware of the risk.

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

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing a broader interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. For example in the asbestos MDL in Philadelphia, a case has been remanded back to an Illinois federal court to determine whether the state is able to recognize the defense. The plaintiff who died in that case worked as a carpenter and was exposed to turbines and switchgear at the Texaco refinery that contained asbestos-containing components.

In a similar case a judge in Tennessee has indicated that he will take a different approach to the bare-metal defense. In the case the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He worked on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case held that bare metal defenses are applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will impact how judges apply the bare-metal defense in other situations.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with a deep medical and legal knowledge as well as access to experts of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys have decades of experience in asbestos exposure litigation litigation, which includes investigating claims, creating strategies for managing litigation and Asbestos Litigation Group budgets, identifying and hiring experts as well as defending plaintiffs and defendants with expert testimony in trials and depositions.

Typically, asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals, such as a radiologist and pathologist who can testify about X-rays or CT scans that reveal the lung tissue being damaged typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify about symptoms such as breathing difficulties that are similar to those experienced by mesothelioma, as well as other asbestos class action litigation-related diseases. Experts can provide a thorough account of the plaintiff's work history, including an analysis of their tax and social security and union records as well as job and employment details.

It may be necessary to consult an engineer from the forensic field or an environmental scientist to determine the source of asbestos exposure. Experts in these fields can assist defense attorneys argue that the alleged asbestos was not exposed at work and was instead brought home on workers' clothing or from the outside air (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs employ economic loss experts to assess the financial losses incurred by victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money that a victim has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on their daily life. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills and the cost of hiring someone else to complete household chores that an individual is unable to perform.

It is important that plaintiffs challenge defendants experts, particularly in the event that they have testified on dozens or hundreds of asbestos claims. Experts can lose credibility with the jury if their testimony is repeated.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also seek summary judgment if they show that the evidence doesn't establish that the plaintiff suffered any injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. However, a judge will not grant summary judgment just because the defendant has pointed out gaps in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

The delays involved in asbestos cases means that meaningful discovery can be nearly impossible. The time between exposure and the onset of disease can be measured by decades. To determine the facts on which to base a claim, it is necessary to examine an individual's employment history. This typically involves a thorough review of social security and tax records, union and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with less serious diseases such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, a defendant's ability to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are due to a disease other than mesothelioma may have a significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have employed this method to deny responsibility and obtain large sums. As the defense bar evolved, courts have generally resisted this approach. This is especially relevant in federal courts where judges have frequently dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is therefore essential to ensure a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and nature of the exposure, as and the severity of any diagnosed disease. For instance a carpenter with mesothelioma will likely be awarded higher damages than one who has only suffered from asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complicated and costly. We assist our clients to understand the risks involved in this type of litigation and we assist them to develop internal programs that are proactive and identify liability and safety concerns. Contact us today to find out more about how our firm can safeguard your company's interests.