Asbestos Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP is widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation defense. The attorneys of the Firm regularly participate in national conferences and are proficient in the myriad issues that arise when defending asbestos cases, including jurisdictional Case Management Orders and expert selection.

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

Statute of limitations

In most personal injury claims, a statute limits the time frame within which a victim may file a claim. In asbestos cases, statute of limitations differs according to the state. They are also different from other personal injury claims since asbestos-related illnesses may take years to develop.

Due to the delayed nature mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitation clock starts on the date of diagnosis, or death in wrongful death cases, rather than the date exposure. This discovery rule is the reason victims and their family members need to work with an experienced New York mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible.

There are a myriad of factors to consider when making an asbestos lawsuit. The statute of limitations is one of the most important. This is the deadline which the victim must make a claim by, and failure to file a lawsuit by the deadline could cause the case to be dismissed. The time limit for filing a lawsuit varies from state to state, and the laws differ widely. However, the majority allow between one and six year after the victim was diagnosed.

In an asbestos case defendants frequently use the statute of limitation as a defense to liability. For example, they may claim that the plaintiffs knew or should have been aware of their exposure and therefore had a duty to notify their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma lawsuits and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

A defendant in an asbestos case may be able to claim that they didn't have the resources or the means to warn about the dangers of the product. This is a complicated argument that relies on the evidence available. In California for instance it was argued that the defendants lacked "state-ofthe-art" information and therefore could not to provide sufficient warnings.

Generally, it is best to file the asbestos lawsuit within the state of the victim's home. However, there are some circumstances where it may be beneficial to file the lawsuit in a different state. This is usually connected with the location of the employer or the location where the employee was exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic that equipment manufacturers use in asbestos litigation. It argues that since their products left the factory as unfinished metal, they had no obligation to warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing substances added by other parties at a later time, such as thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense is accepted in certain jurisdictions, but not in all.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries changed the law. The Court did not accept manufacturers' preferred bright-line rule and instead established a standard that requires manufacturers to inform consumers if they know that their integrated product is unsafe for its intended use and have no reason to think that the end users will be aware of the risk.

While this change in law could make it harder for plaintiffs to win claims against manufacturers of equipment, it's not the end of the tale. The DeVries decision does not apply to state-law claims which are based on strict liability, or negligence, and therefore not brought under federal maritime law statutes like the Jones Act.

Plaintiffs will continue to pursue a broader reading of the bare metal defense. For example in the Asbestos MDL case in Philadelphia, a case was remanded to an Illinois federal court to determine whether that state recognizes the 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 refining facility.

In the same case in Tennessee, a Tennessee judge has stated that he would adopt the third perspective of the defense of bare metal. In that 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, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case ruled that bare metal defenses apply to cases similar to this. The Supreme Court's DeVries decision will influence how judges apply the bare-metal defense in other contexts.

Defendants' Experts

Asbestos litigation is complex and require skilled attorneys who have a thorough knowledge of both legal and medical issues and access to expert witnesses of the highest caliber. EWH attorneys EWH have years of experience in assisting clients with various asbestos litigation cases, such as investigating claims, preparing strategic budgets and litigation management plans, identifying and retaining experts, and defending plaintiffs' and defendants expert testimony during deposition and at trial.

Typically asbestos cases require the testimony of medical professionals like pathologists and radiologists who can testify regarding X-rays or CT scans that reveal scarring of lung tissue that is typical of asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can also testify on symptoms, like breathing difficulties, which are similar to mesothelioma as well as other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can also provide a an extensive history of the work done by the plaintiff, including a review of job, union, tax, and social security documents.

It may be necessary to consult a forensic engineer or an environmental scientist in order to determine the cause of asbestos exposure. Experts from these fields can assist defendants to argue that asbestos exposure was not in the workplace, but brought into the home through the clothing of workers or the outside air.

Many plaintiffs' attorneys will hire economic loss experts to calculate the financial loss suffered by victims. They can determine the amount of money a person has lost due to disease and the impact it has had on their life. They can also testify on expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring someone to do household chores a person cannot perform.

It is essential for defendants to challenge the plaintiff's expert witnesses, especially when they have given evidence in dozens, or hundreds of asbestos-related claims. Experts may lose credibility with jurors if their testimony is repeated.

In asbestos cases, defendants can also request summary judgment if they can show that the evidence doesn't prove that the plaintiff was injured due to exposure to the defendant's products. A judge will not issue a summary judgment merely because a defendant points out holes in the plaintiff's proof.

Going to Trial

Due to the latency issues in asbestos cases, it is difficult to make a significant discovery. The lag between exposure and the onset of the disease could be measured in decades. To establish the facts on which to build a claim it is essential to review an individual's work background. This typically involves a thorough analysis of social security as well as tax, union, and financial records as in interviews with co-workers and family members.

Asbestos sufferers are more likely to develop less serious illnesses like asbestosis before a mesothelioma diagnosis. Because of this, the ability of a defendant to prove that a plaintiff's symptoms are caused by a disease other than mesothelioma can have significant importance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain lawyers have employed this method to deny responsibility and obtain large awards. However, as the defense bar has grown and diversified, this strategy has been generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true in the federal courts where judges have often dismissed claims based on lack of evidence.

As a result, a careful evaluation of every potential defendant is crucial to an effective asbestos litigation defense. This includes assessing the length and extent of exposure as and the severity of any disease that is diagnosed. For asbestos litigation Paralegal instance, a worker who has mesothelioma is likely to suffer greater damages than a person who only has asbestosis.

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

asbestos litigation paralegal (their website) litigation can be complex and costly. We help our clients to understand the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we assist them to create internal programs that can identify safety and liability concerns. Contact us to learn how we can protect the interests of your company.

推選0 非推選0