Mesothelioma Litigation History

Posted on March 15, 2010 | Category: Legal Trivia, Uncategorized

In 2000 we saw the case of a former Navy employee against his former employer, a manufacturing corporation of asbestos products, Owens-Illinois, Inc. The plaintiff got awarded a substantial compensation for the injury he suffered during the course of his employment with the defendant. However, Owens-Illinois, Inc. was not only found guilty on the charges of alleged negligence, but further to that also fraudulent conduct.

Apparently, the defendant was engaged in a conspiracy with other companies in the asbestos manufacturing business. It became evident that they had not only covered up revealing facts regarding the hazardous potential of asbestos exposure, but further to that also failed to adequately inform their employees. The jury and judge in charge assessed further “malice and oppression in its conduct”.

In another case reported from Los Angeles, a retired machinist received compensation for asbestos injuries he experienced while he was employed by a local asbestos manufacturer. The defendant was found guilty by the jury of malice, oppression and fraud. Generally, if an employee can establish convincing proof that his employer has purposefully, or by negligence, caused and injury to him, he may be eligible for mesothelioma litigation. Both of the cases we just discussed are typical examples of asbestos litigations. They are based on a victim’s claim to receive monetary compensation for his medical expenses, loss of wages and his pain and suffering.
In some states and jurisdiction, punitive damages may be applicable, too. Punitive damages go beyond the compensation of a victim and they are basically ordered payments with the intention to punish corporations for misconduct. The law sees them as a tool to send a signal that negligence and any unlawful actions will not be tolerated.

Mesothelioma litigation has experienced a snowball effect since the 1970s, when lawyers where able to prove that several corporations had surveys conducted to evaluate their premises on potential dangers and harms to their employees by asbestos exposure. The results of these surveys were kept under the hat and therefore, workers in the thousands got sick and ultimately died of asbestos induced diseases.

» Filed Under Legal Trivia, Uncategorized

Leave a Reply