10 Best Mobile Apps For Asbestos Litigation Defense

asbestos attorneys Litigation Defense

Cetrulo LLP has been widely recognized as a leader in asbestos litigation. The Firm's attorneys are regularly invited to present at national conferences. They are also knowledgeable on the many issues that arise in litigating asbestos cases.

Research has proved that exposure to asbestos causes lung damage and disease. This includes mesothelioma, and lesser illnesses like asbestosis and plaques in the pleural cavity.

Statute of Limitations

In most personal injury cases, a statute limits the time period after which a victim can make a claim. In the case of asbestos the statute of limitations differs by state and is different from other personal injury cases because the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases can take a long time to manifest.

Due to the delay in the development of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, the statute of limitations clock starts at the date of diagnosis (or death, in cases of wrongful death) instead of the date of exposure. This discovery rule is that victims and their families need to work as soon as they can with an experienced New York asbestos lawyer.

When making an asbestos lawsuit, there are many things that need to be considered. The statute of limitations is among the most crucial. The statute of limitations is the date by which the victim must file a lawsuit. Failure to do so could result in the lawsuit being barred. The statute of limitations varies in each state, and laws vary greatly in some states, but the majority allow between one and six years from when the victim was diagnosed with an asbestos lawyers-related disease.

In asbestos cases defendants typically employ the statute of limitations as a defense against liability. For example, they may argue that the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have known about their exposure and thus had a duty to notify their employer. This is an argument that is common in mesothelioma cases and it isn't easy for the plaintiff to prove.

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

In general, it is recommended to file the asbestos lawsuit in the state where the victim's residence. In certain situations it may be appropriate to file a lawsuit in a different state than the victim's. This is usually to be related to the location of the employer or the place where the employee was first exposed to asbestos.

Bare Metal

The defense of bare metal is a tactic used by equipment manufacturers in asbestos litigation. It states that since their products left the factory as unfinished metal, they had no duty to warn of the risks of asbestos-containing products added by other parties at a later date for example, thermal insulation and flange gaskets. This defense has been embraced in certain jurisdictions, but it is not permitted under federal law in all states.

The Supreme Court's decision in Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries has reshaped that. The Court did not accept the manufacturers' preferred bright line rule and instead established the new standard under which a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers if it is aware that its integrated product will be harmful for its intended use and does not have any reason to believe that its end users will realize that risk.

This change in law will make it more difficult plaintiffs to bring claims against equipment manufacturers. However, this is not the end. For one, the DeVries decision is not applicable to state-law claims founded on negligence or strict liability and are not covered by federal maritime law statutes, like the Jones Act or the Maritime Claims Act.

Plaintiffs will continue pursuing an expanded interpretation of the defense of bare-metal. In the Asbestos Multi-District Litigation in 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 case was carpenter who was exposed to switchgear, turbines and other asbestos-containing parts at a Texaco refining facility.

In the same case in Tennessee, an Tennessee judge has stated that he would take the third approach to bare metal defense. 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, including Equipment Defendants. The judge in the case decided that the bare-metal defense is applicable 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 a complex affair and requires attorneys with extensive knowledge of law and medicine as well as access to top experts. Attorneys at EWH have years of experience helping clients in various asbestos litigation matters including investigating claims, developing strategic budgets and litigation management strategies, finding and retaining experts, and defending defendants' and plaintiffs expert testimony in depositions and in court.

Most asbestos cases require the testimony from medical professionals like a radiologist or pathologist. They can testify that X-rays and CT scans reveal the typical scarring of lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. A pulmonologist can be able to testify about symptoms, like breathing problems, which are similar to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. Experts can provide a detailed description of the plaintiff's employment history, including an investigation of their tax social security documents, union and job information.

A forensic engineer or environmental science expert could be required to clarify the source of the asbestos exposure. These experts can aid the defendants argue that the asbestos exposure was not at the workplace, but was brought into the home through the clothing of workers or by airborne particles.

Many attorneys representing plaintiffs employ economic loss experts to determine the monetary loss suffered by victims. These experts can calculate how much money a victim has lost due to their illness and the impact it had on his or her life. They can also testify about expenses such as medical bills and the cost of hiring a person to take care of household chores that one is unable to do anymore.

It is crucial for defendants to challenge expert witnesses of the plaintiff, especially in cases where they have been called to testify in dozens or hundreds of asbestos-related cases. Experts may lose credibility with the jury if their testimony is repeated.

Defendants in asbestos cases can also request summary judgment if they can show that the evidence doesn't show that the plaintiff suffered any injuries from exposure to the defendant's product. However the judge will not accept summary judgment simply because the defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the plaintiff's evidence.

Trial

Due to the latency issues that are prevalent in asbestos cases, it can be difficult to make an accurate discovery. The lag between exposure and the onset of the disease can be measured in years. Thus, establishing the facts upon which to make a case will require a thorough examination of the entire work history. This requires a thorough examination of the individual's social security, tax and union financial records, as well as interviews with family members and colleagues.

Asbestos patients are more likely to develop less serious illnesses such as asbestosis prior to diagnosis of mesothelioma. Because of this, a defendant's ability to demonstrate that plaintiff's symptoms are due to another disease than mesothelioma could be of significant significance in settlement negotiations.

In the past, certain attorneys have used this approach to deny responsibility and obtain large amounts of money. However as the defense bar has grown, this approach is generally rejected by the courts. This is particularly true for federal courts, where judges routinely dismiss such claims due to lack of evidence.

A careful evaluation of every potential defendant is essential for a successful defense in asbestos litigation. This involves evaluating both the severity and length of the disease and the extent of the exposure. For instance carpenters with mesothelioma will likely be awarded a higher amount of damages than a person who has only had asbestosis.

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

Asbestos cases can be complex and costly. We assist our clients to recognize the risks involved in this kind of litigation and we work with them to develop internal programs that will proactively detect liability and safety issues. Contact us today to learn more about how our company can protect your company's interests.