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

Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely acknowledged as a pioneer in asbestos litigation. The attorneys of the Firm are regularly invited to give presentations at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the numerous issues that arise when defending asbestos cases.

Research has shown that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma as and lesser diseases such as asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute of limitation establishes a time limit for the length of time that follows an accident or injury the victim can start a lawsuit. In the case of asbestos litigation cases, the statute of limitations differs by state and differs from in other personal injury claims because the signs of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases the statute of limitations clock begins at the date of diagnosis (or death in the case of wrongful deaths) instead of the time of exposure. This discovery rule is why victims and their families must work as quickly as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When filing an asbestos law & litigation (Suggested Reading) lawsuit, there are a variety of aspects that must be taken into account. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. This is the date which the victim must submit the lawsuit by, and failing to do so could cause the case to be barred. The time limit for filing a lawsuit is different from state to state and the laws vary greatly. However, most allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.

During an asbestos case in which the defendants are involved, they will typically try 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 asbestos exposure and had an obligation to notify their employer. This is a common argument used in mesothelioma lawsuits, and is difficult to prove for the victim.

Another defense that could be used in a asbestos case is that the defendants didn't have the means or resources to warn people of the dangers associated with the product. This is a complex argument and largely depends on the evidence available. In California for instance, it was successfully argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not provide adequate warnings.

In general, it is recommended to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state where the victim's home. However, there are some circumstances where it may make sense to file the lawsuit in another state. This usually has to do with the place of the employer or the place where the worker was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The bare-metal defense is a strategy that equipment manufacturers employ in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products left the factory as unfinished metal, they had no obligation to warn consumers of the dangers of asbestos-containing products added by other parties at a later date like thermal insulation and gaskets for flanges. This defense is accepted in a few jurisdictions, but it is not available under federal law specializes in asbestos litigation 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 that manufacturers prefer and instead formulated the standard that requires the manufacturer to notify customers when they know that their product is hazardous for its intended purpose and there is no reason to believe that the end users will be aware of the danger.

While this change in law may make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in claims against equipment manufacturers, it is not the end of the story. The DeVries decision is not applicable to state law claims based on strict liability or negligence, and is not applicable to claims brought under federal maritime law statutes, such as the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader understanding of the bare-metal defense. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation of Philadelphia for instance the case was remanded to an Illinois federal judge to determine whether that state recognizes this defense. The plaintiff who died in this instance was a carpenter who had been exposed to switchgear, turbines, 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 approach to the defense of bare metal. In the case, the plaintiff was a Tennessee Eastman Chemical Plant mechanic who was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. He was employed on equipment that was repaired or replaced by third party contractors, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in that case ruled that the bare metal defense is applicable to cases like this. The Supreme Court's decision in DeVries will affect the way judges will apply the bare-metal defense in other cases for example, those involving state law tort claims.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and requires lawyers with deep medical and legal knowledge, as well as accessing top experts. The attorneys at EWH have years of experience assisting clients in various asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and plans for managing litigation, hiring and retaining experts and defense of defendants and plaintiffs expert testimony in deposition and during trial.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals such as pathologists and radiologists who testify on X-rays or CT scans that show the lung tissue being damaged that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can be able to testify about symptoms, such as breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Experts can also provide detailed history of work performed by the plaintiff, including an examination of the worker's union tax, social security documents.

It could be necessary to consult an engineer who is forensic or an environmental scientist in order to determine the source of asbestos exposure. These experts can help plaintiffs argue that the asbestos was not exposed in the workplace and was instead brought home through clothing worn by workers or in the air outside (a common defense in mesothelioma cases).

A lot of plaintiffs lawyers will bring experts in economic loss to assess the financial losses suffered by the victims. These experts can calculate the amount of money that a victim lost as a result of their illness and its effect on their daily life. They can also testify on expenses like medical bills as well as the cost of hiring someone to do household chores that one cannot perform anymore.

It is crucial that defendants challenge plaintiffs experts, particularly if they have testified on dozens or hundreds of asbestos litigation cases claims. If they repeat their testimony, these experts may lose credibility with jurors.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also request summary judgment if they demonstrate that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff was injured due to their exposure to the defendant's product. However a judge won't give summary judgment merely because the defendant points to holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Trial

Due to the latency issues involved in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make a significant discovery. The time between exposure and disease can be measured in decades. To establish the facts on which to base a case, it is necessary to look over an individual's job background. This includes a thorough analysis of the individual's tax, social security and union records, as well as financial documents, in addition to interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with less serious diseases such as asbestosis prior to a mesothelioma diagnosis. Due to this, the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms might be due to another disease that is not mesothelioma-related is crucial in settlement negotiations.

In the past, some attorneys have employed this strategy to deny liability and Asbestos law & litigation obtain large amounts of money. As the defense bar evolved, courts have largely rejected this strategy. This is particularly true in federal courts, asbestos law & Litigation where judges routinely dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

A thorough evaluation of each potential defendant is essential to be able to defend effectively in asbestos litigation. This includes assessing the duration and extent of exposure as in addition to the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For instance, a woodworker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer more damage than someone who has asbestosis.

The Bowles Rice Asbestos Litigation Team regularly defends product manufacturers, suppliers contractors, distributors as well as property owners and employers in asbestos related litigation. Our lawyers have extensive experience as National Trial and National Coordinating Counsel, and are regularly appointed by the courts as liaison counsel to oversee the prosecution of asbestos dockets.

Asbestos litigation can be complicated and expensive. We help our clients recognize the risks involved in this type of litigation, and we work with them to develop internal programs that can identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us today to learn more about how our firm can protect your company's interests.