Asbestos News Daily
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIST

 
     
  Friday, December 15th, 2017 ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIST
 
 
 
 

ASBESTOSNEWSDAILY.COM NEWS ARCHIVES
AsbestosNewsDaily.com

HOME
MESOTHELIOMA IN THE NEWS
ASBESTOS IN THE NEWS
MESOTHELIOMA WORLD HEADLINES
ASBESTOS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
ASBESTOS IN THE WORKPLACE
ASBESTOS FACTS AND STATISTICS
SECONDHAND EXPOSURE
MESOTHELIOMA SYMPTOMS
MESOTHELIOMA TREATMENTS
MESOTHELIOMA DIAGNOSIS
MESOTHELIOMA DOCTORS
MESOTHELIOMA SCREENING
MESOTHELIOMA STAGES
MESOTHELIOMA DRUGS
MESOTHELIOMA NUTRITION
MESOTHELIOMA RESEARCH
MESOTHELIOMA CLINICAL TRIALS
MESOTHELIOMA CANCER CENTERS
MESOTHELIOMA BOOK REVIEWS
PLEURAL MESOTHELIOMA
PERICARDIAL MESOTHELIOMA
PERITONEAL MESOTHELIOMA
ASBESTOS RELATED CANCERS
ASBESTOS NAVY VETERANS
ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR FINES
ASBESTOS LEGISLATION
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIST
ASBESTOS TRADES LIST
ASBESTOS ALERTS!
MESOTHELIOMA AWARENESS & GRANTS
MESOTHELIOMA COURT VERDICTS
MESOTHELIOMA WRONGFUL DEATH
MESOTHELIOMA LEGAL HISTORY
MESOTHELIOMA LAWYERS
ASBESTOS ODDLY ENOUGH
MESOTHELIOMA LAWSUITS
ALUMINUM PLANTS
CHEMICAL PLANTS
STEEL MILLS
OIL REFINERIES
POWER PLANTS
SHIPYARDS
ASBESTOS COMPANIES
ASBESTOS CITIES
ASBESTOS JOBSITES
ASBESTOS NAVY SHIPS
WOMEN AND MESOTHELIOMA


AsbestosNewsDaily.com

ABOUT US
CONTACT US
PRIVACY POLICY
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CLAIMS
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY TRUSTS

MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER BY STATES
AsbestosNewsDaily.com

HOME
ALABAMA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
ALASKA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
ARIZONA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
ARKANSAS MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
CALIFORNIA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
COLORADO MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
CONNECTICUT MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
DELAWARE MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
FLORIDA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
GEORGIA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
HAWAII MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
IDAHO MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
ILLINOIS MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
INDIANA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
IOWA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
KANSAS MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
KENTUCKY MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
LOUISIANA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MAINE MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MARYLAND MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MASSACHUSETTS MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MICHIGAN MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MINNESOTA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MISSISSIPPI MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MISSOURI MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
MONTANA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NEBRASKA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NEVADA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NEW HAMPSHIRE MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NEW JERSEY MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NEW MEXICO MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NEW YORK MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NORTH CAROLINA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
NORTH DAKOTA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
OHIO MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
OKLAHOMA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
OREGON MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
PENNSYLVANIA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
RHODE ISLAND MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
SOUTH CAROLINA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
SOUTH DAKOTA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
TENNESSEE MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
TEXAS MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
UTAH MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
VERMONT MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
VIRGINIA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
WASHINGTON MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
WEST VIRGINIA MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
WISCONSIN MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER
WYOMING MESOTHELIOMA LAWYER

Asbestos Mesothelioma Resource Links
AsbestosNewsDaily.com

MESO RESEARCH FOUNDATION
AMERICAN CANCER FOUNDATION
MESOTHELIOMAASBESTOSHELPCENTER.COM
CANCER.GOV - FACTSHEET/TYPES/MESOTHELIOMA
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE - MESOTHELIOMA
CANCER.GOV - RADIATION THERAPY FORCANCER
CANCER.GOV- FACTSHEET/THERAPY/RADIATION
WIKIPEDIA: MESOTHELIOMA PAGE
EPA | INDOORAIR QUALITY | ASBESTOS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY -ASBESTOS
CALIFORNIAGEOLOGICAL SURVEY: ASBESTOS REPORTS -MAPS
ASBESTOS LEGISLATIVEHISTORY
NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY FOUNDATION
WORLDCANCERCAMPAIGN.ORG
AMERICA’S ASBESTOS EPIDEMIC
CANCERCARE.ORG
WORLDCANCER DAY - FEBRAURY 04, 2010
NATIONALCANCER INSTITUTE
ASBESTOS DISEASE AWARENESS ORGANIZATION
EPA ASBESTOS HOME PAGE(Environmental Protection Agency)
ASBESTOS CONSTRUCTION HAZARD ALERT(Center to Protect Workers Rights)

 

ASBESTOS DAILY NEWS ADMINISTRATION
AsbestosNewsDaily.com

Report Broken Link
brokenlink@asbestosnewsdaily.com

Submit Asbestos Video
asbestosvideo@asbestosnewsdaily.com

Submit Asbestos Daily News Articles
asbestosnews@asbestosnewsdaily.com

Have a Question?
support@asbestosnewsdaily.com

Need a Lawyer?
needalawyer@asbestosnewsdaily.com

Need a Doctor?
needadoctor@asbestosnewsdaily.com

HONOR OF THE FALLEN SOLDIERS


 UGANDABUYAMBA.COM ORPHAN OUTREACH

 
 
 
 
 
ASBESTOS NEWS DAILY - ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIST
AsbestosNewsDaily.com
 
35 Related Articles 
 

Asbestos Products


 
 
Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
 


    A



    B



    C



    D



    E



    F



    G



    H



    I



    J



    K



    L



    M



    N



    O



    P



    Q



    R



    S



    T



    U



    V



    W



    Y



    Z

     
     
     
    Asbestos Products – Asbestos Exposure – Asbestos Related Diseases

    Asbestos Exposure

    by Dave Barker

    veteranstoday.com /2010/04/27/

    The Department of Veterans Affairs has stated there are currently 25 million Americans who have served in the armed forces of theUnited States. Possible millions of theseAmerican veterans were exposed to toxic asbestos during their military or naval service. Asbestos was used by every military branch.As asbestos was highly regarded for its heat resistance andfireproofing capabilities. Asbestos was so valued that the military andNavy mandated widespread usage before it was phased out during the 1970’s.

    Most used theasbestos productsfor insulation purposes, as than 300 products containing asbestos were used by primarily by the Navy from the 1930’s through the 1970’s. Every ship and shipyard built by the Navy before themid-70’s was fitted with numerous asbestos containing materials. To a lesser degree the Army and Air Force used asbestos.

    What were the levels of risk for asbestos exposure on ourNaval vessels? In a word, high! The asbestos products were extensively used in engine and boiler rooms and other areas below deck for fire safety purposes. Navy personnel who worked below deck were heavily exposed to asbestos, but all sailors are at risk, as this deadly compound was used in navigation rooms, sleeping quarters, and mess halls, as decks and pipe coverings all contained asbestos.

    It must be understood, no portion of a Naval ship was asbestos free between the 1930’s and mid 1970’s, making Navy veterans and shipyard workers one of the most at risk groups for developing asbestos related diseases. I have had clients who were told by the VA rating specialists that other than engineering rates were not exposed, that is simply not true. In multiple cases I have shown where deck rates wore asbestos gloves when their duty was hotshellman on the gun mounts, or asbestos suits on damage control duties.

    Of all occupations exposed to asbestos, veterans account for 30% of allmesothelioma cancer patients. Thus more than 30% of Americans suffering withmesothelioma (a cancer of the internal lining of the lungs, abdomen, and heart) were exposed to asbestos during their military or naval service.

    Veterans who served between up to the 1970’s have a great risk of developing asbestosis, cancer and other related disease. Navy personnel and workers employed in shipyards through the 1970’s hold a greatpossiblity of developing a disease caused by asbestos exposure.

    Veterans with an asbestos related illness should contact a veteran’s service officer and file their claims. It is important you select a VSO who will think outside of the VA box, especially on these type conditions.

    The veteran must provide proof that their disease is asbestos related and that exposure occurred during military service. The burden of proof is always on the veteran, in this case, due to mind sets, the proof is difficult even though it is totally obvious.

    The Department of Veteran Affairs recognizes asbestos as well asmesothelioma as a service connected disability.

    Even when diagnosed withmesothelioma which all cases are caused by asbestos exposure, the VA does not consider is a presumptive, nor always approve the claim for disability compensation. The veteran must provide evidence themesothelioma ‘is as likely as not’ to have been caused by exposure to asbestos while in service.

    Diagnosis of asbestos related diseases is difficult as many symptoms are identical with other disorders. Symptoms range from respiratory problems as well as chest pain, thus asbestos related conditions are frequently misdiagnosed. This causes the condition to spread. Similar pleuralmesothelioma a common form of asbestos cancers, has symptoms such as a chronic cough, night sweats, and fever, which are frequently misdiagnosed as pneumonia or the flu. As a result the cancer becomes active and spreads.

    Mesothelioma treatment is available at the VAMC. VA physicians and clinicians are specialty trained. The local VA may have to send the veterans to another facility, but they will make sure the condition is monitored and treated properly.

    You may find valuable information on my website:
    http://davebarker.portalone.us/

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/04/27/veterans-for-change-weekly-report-2/

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products – Asbestos Exposure – Asbestos in Your Lungs

    Asbestos: What It Does to Your Lungs

    By Darlene Oakley

    January 25, 2010 - 8:53am

    What is Asbestos?

    Asbestos is a fiber that was used as an insulator and fire-retardant in the past. While the EPA and CPSC have banned the use of asbestos for many things and it is no longer used in newer homes, it may still be found in homes and buildings built in a time whenasbestos products were available. Asbestos is still used in pipe and furnace insulation, shingles, millboard, textured paints, and floor tiles.

    Even without asbestos insulation, this fiber can become airborne through remodeling older homes, or improper protocols when cutting and cleaning up asbestos fibers from new home improvement projects.

    Asbestos is also a naturally occurring mineral and can be found in soils and rocks and can be released into the air through construction or weather. So long as the soil and rock remain undisturbed, there is no health risk.

    Asbestos and the Lungs

    Those who have experienced prolonged exposure to asbestos fibers are at higher risk of lung cancer,mesotheliomaand nonmalignant lung and pleural disorders like asbestosis, pleural plaques, pleural thickening, and pleural effusion. The progression of these conditions may continue even after exposure to asbestos has been restricted.

    Asbestos-related lung conditions develop over time, up to 15 years or longer after preliminary exposure for those who work(ed) with asbestos. Smokers who are exposed to asbestos are at a significantly greater risk for asbestos-related conditions than non-smokers.

    These conditions develop when asbestos fibers are not completely exhaled by the lungs. They remain lodged in the lungs and stay there. As theamount of fibers accumulate over the years, the lung tissue becomes scarred and inflamed. As the scarring and inflammation worsen, it becomes more and more difficult for a person to breathe.

    Types of Asbestos-related Conditions

    Asbestosis

    Asbestosis develops when the lung tissues become scarred or inflamed from prolonged exposure. Those who have been exposed to asbestos may develop asbestosis anywhere between 10 to 20 years after initial exposure.

    Some patients will have no symptoms at all while other patients will have very debilitating and potentially fatal symptoms.

    Such symptoms include:

    -shortness of breath
    - continuous and productive cough
    - tightness in the chest
    - loss of appetite
    - dry, crackling sound with inhaling

    Mesothelioma

    This is a rare cancer that affects the lining of the chest cavity, the outside of the lung (pleura) or abdominal area (peritoneum).

    Lung Cancer

    Lung cancer is a malignant disease that invades and obstructs the lung's air passages.

    There is speculation that asbestos exposure can also lead to gastrointestinal and colorectal cancers, as well as cancers of the kidney, brain, larynx, and bladder. But no definitive correlation has been found.

    Preventing Exposure

    Asbestos poses no health threat so long as the products that contain asbestos remain undamaged or disturbed. The best idea is to just leave these products alone. If you are planning renovations either on an older house, or using products that still contain asbestos, make sure you contractor is trained and qualified to ensure that any disturbed asbestos is cleaned up. Also, ensure that all damaged or worn asbestos gloves, stove-top pads, or ironing board covers are thrown away and that local health, environmental, and other regulations are followed for proper, safe disposal.

    Sources: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/asbestos (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry);www.epa.gov (United States Environmental Protection Agency);www.nhlbi.nih.gov (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute);www.medicinenet.com

    http://www.empowher.com/asbestosis/content/asbestos-what-it-does-your-lungs

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products – Asbestos Exposure – Asbestos Caused Cancer

    CSX workers claim asbestos exposure caused cancer
    3/16/2010 3:29 PM By KellyHolleran 

    A group of railroad workers claim they are at an increased risk todevelop cancer because of asbestos to which they were exposed throughout their careers.

    Glenn A. Williams, Richard D.Cocke,Vincente E. Leal, Ronald Kidd, MelvinDenhart, Jesus Zavala andPascual Santiago filed a lawsuit March 9 in Madison County Circuit Court against CSX Transportation.

    The plaintiffs' work for the railroad ranged from 1959 until 2008. Throughout their careers, the plaintiffs claim they worked around asbestos-containing products, sand, coal, rock, granite, iron, aluminum, bauxite, carbon black, coke and other products transported by CSX.

    Because of their exposure to the materials, the plaintiffs developed pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and other health condition that have caused them to experience a diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy, according to the complaint. In addition, the plaintiffs say they suffered bodily pain, injury, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, extreme fear, nervousness and loss of capacity to enjoy life; incurred medical costs; and lost earnings and their ability to earn money.

    Now the plaintiffs are at an increased risk for developing cancer, infections of the lung, progressive lung disease,bronchogenic carcinomas,mesothelioma and gastro-intestinal carcinoma, the suit states.

    They blame CSX for their injuries, saying the company performed a number of negligent acts, including failure to provide them with a safe place to work, failure to provide them with safe tools, failure to warn them of the hazardous nature of theasbestos products, failure to operate the railroad in a safe manner, failure to provide instructions on the safe use of asbestos materials, failure to enforce a safety plan, failure to remove the asbestos dust, failure to test products before requiring the plaintiffs to work with them and failure to provide the plaintiffs with safe ventilation systems.

    The plaintiffs seek a judgment of at least $100,000 each, plus other relief the court deems just.

    Daniel R. Francis of Francis Law Firm inSt. Louis will be representing them.

    MadisonCounty Circuit Court case number: 10-L-252.

    http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/225389-csx-workers-claim-asbestos-exposure-caused-cancer
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Product – Asbestos Trades – $3.4 Million Mesothelioma Lawsuit

    Jury Assesses a $3.4 Million Verdict for Johns-Manville Worker With Mesothelioma

    Former Johns-Manville worker, Richard Worthley Sr., was exposed to raw asbestos supplied by Advocate Mines Limited. Due to his occupational asbestos exposure, he ultimatelydeveloped and succumbed to mesothelioma. In his defective product and negligence case against Advocate Mines Limited, aSan Francisco jury ruled in favor of Mr. Worthley's family, assessing a $3.4million verdict.

    Novato,CA (PRWEB) July 23, 2009 -- After a single day of deliberations on Wednesday, July 22, 2009, aSan Francisco jury ruled in favor of the family of Richard Worthley Sr., a deceased former Johns-Manville Transite plant worker fromBeaumont,California. The jury assessed a combined verdict of almost $3.4million against Advocate Mines Limited due to their contribution in causing Mr. Worthley's mesothelioma and death. The jury determined that Advocate Mines Limited exposed Mr. Worthley to its defectively designed asbestos product, failed to warn about the dangers of theirasbestos product, and that they were negligent. Advocate Mines Limited is an asbestos mine inBaie Verte,Newfoundland.          

    Mr. Worthley served in the United States Marine Corps in the San Francisco Bay Area,San Diego,California, andVietnam from 1963 to 1967. In May 1968, he started his career at the Johns-Manville,Waukegan,IL plant as a painter, then a production planner, and eventually as a millwright. When the Johns-Manville plant closed in 1984, he worked as a maintenance mechanic and service technician throughoutSouthern California. In 2004, Mr. Worthley was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal asbestos caused cancer of the pleura, the organ that protects the lungs.

    We demonstrated to the jury that it was the total dose of asbestos that Mr. Worthley was exposed to at the Johns-Manville plant, including resuspended asbestos fiber from Advocate Mines Limited, that contributed together to cause his mesothelioma and death. 

     

    Advocate Mines Limited supplied bulk asbestos fiber to the Johns-Manville,Waukegan,IL plant from December 1963 to April 1967. During his career at the plant from May 1968 to November 1984, Mr. Worthley was exposed to dust from the raw asbestos fiber used to make Transite asbestos-cement pipe, including asbestos fiber that had been reentrained and resuspended from when Advocate Mines Limited supplied asbestos fiber to the plant. In addition to simply being present on a daily basis in the contaminated plant, one of Mr. Worthley's jobs was to clean and repair the Transite manufacturing equipment. This included the willows, cleaning and repairing the dust collection equipment, the bag houses, ventilators, and cyclones. All these activities exposed Mr. Worthley to asbestos dust, including asbestos that originated from Advocate Mines Limited.

    The trial began on June 10, 2009 and was presided over by the Hon. Tomar Mason in Department 606 of the San Francisco Superior Court. At trial, plaintiffs presented evidence showing that when used as intended, hazardous levels of respirable asbestos dust from Advocate Mines Limited raw asbestos fiber was released into the background of the facility. By 1963, it was well established in medicine and science that asbestos caused asbestosis, pleural disease, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Yet, Advocate Mines Limited supplied its defective asbestos fiber without any warnings or any other reasonable care to avoid injury to others. The jury assigned 5% percent of the liability to Advocate Mines Limited.

    "We demonstrated to the jury that it was the total dose of asbestos that Mr. Worthley was exposed to at the Johns-Manville plant, including resuspended asbestos fiber from Advocate Mines Limited, that contributed together to cause his mesothelioma and death." said James P. Nevin, counsel for Richard Worthley. Mr. Nevin of BraytonPurcell LLP, represented the Worthley family at trial.

    Defendant Advocate Mines Limited was represented at trial by John Graniez and Suzanne Golden of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

    Case Information:
    Mickie Worthley et al. v. Advocate Mines Limited, et. al.
    San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 432308

    # # #

    Post Comment:
    Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/U3VtbS1Ib3JyLVBpZ2ctRmFsdS1UaGlyLUNvdXAtWmVybw==

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/Brayton-Purcell/mesothelioma-worthley/prweb2675644.htm
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products – Asbestos Trades –Asbestos Related Lawsuit

    Illinois Railroad Company Facing Asbestos Related Lawsuit from Former Employee

    Posted by admin in asbestos law on February 19th, 2009 | 

    raillroadasbestosworkers

    The Illinois Central Railroad Company is facing a lawsuit by a former employee who claims to havecontracted an asbestos-related disease form his time working for the railroad company.

    James A. Miller filed his complaint on February 13th in the St. Clair Country Circuit Court. He claims to have been exposed to asbestos while working as a machinist apprentice and machinist from 1946 to 1951. He mainly worked on locomotive boilers where he says the inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers lead to his disease.

    Miller claims he has had a suffered from pain, extreme nervousness, and mental anguish due to his illness. Financially, Miller has had to pay for medical costs, sustained a loss of earnings, and has a diminished ability to render services, society, affection, counseling and support for his family. Lastly, he has experienced a shortened life expectancy according to the suit.

    In his complaint, Miller states that the Illinois Central Railroad Company was negligent by failing to warn him of the hazardous effects of asbestos exposure. The company also failed to instruct or provide a safe method for usingasbestos-containing products as well as not providing proper ventilation systems and requiring their employees to work in hazardous conditions.

    Finally, Miller claims the company did not test him to check for possible ill effects and did not require limited access to areas whereasbestos products were being used. The railroad also failed to provide separate lockers for clothing worn home or test products before they were used by employees.

    Miller is seeking over$50,000 and any other relief the court feels is appropriate.

    http://www.asbestos-news.org/asbestos-law/illinois-railroad-company-facing-asbestos-related-lawsuit-from-former-employee

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    A. W. Chesterton – Asbestos Products –Asbestos Lawsuit

    Asbestos suit names 46 companies for alleged asbestos exposure 
    8/27/2008 11:20 AM By David Yates 

    Lou Thompson Black

    Tommy Davis and his wife Jacqueline have filed a lawsuit against 46 defendant companies, alleging the companies purposely inflicted Tommy with anasbestos disease. 

    Court papers say A.W. Chesterton and 45 other companies conspired to mine, process and sellasbestos products, suppress the information pertaining to the fiber's hazardous influence on human health and purposely inflict employees with an asbestos disease. 

    Looking for compensation for his alleged exposure to asbestos and for his asbestos related disease, the couple's nine-count personal-injury lawsuit was filed Aug. 26 in the Jefferson County District Court.

    Amineral fiber that has been used commonly in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-retardant, asbestos has been utilized by mankind for more than 2,000 years, said the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site.

    According to the plaintiff's original petition, companies such as Union Carbide, Goodrich andZurn Industries knew that the asbestos products they manufactured would hit the market without inspection for defects.

    "Defendants knowingly conspired among themselves to cause defendant's injuries, diseases, and illness and/or death by exposing him to asbestos," the suit said. "Defendants committed conspiracy by willfully misrepresenting and suppressing the truth as to the risks and dangers associated with asbestos."

    The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical and scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for decades, but conspired among themselves to suppress the information.

    The suit does not give specifics on the location or time ofDavis' employment, but does say he was required to work with machinery and was exposed to asbestos. 

    The plaintiffs are suing for Tommy's physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses, including homecare costs.

    They are also seeking punitive and exemplary damages. 

    Brent Coon & Associates attorney Lou Thompson Black represents the plaintiffs.

    According to the Brent Coon & Associates Web site, Lou Thompson Black is the managing partner of theHouston office of Brent Coon and Associates. 

    She manages hundreds of asbestos cancer cases filed in various jurisdictions and states. Black's primary practice area is toxic tort law, including products liability, premises liability, and employer liability.

    Judge Gary Sanderson of the 60th Judicial District will preside over the case. 

    Case No. B182-294 

    http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/214451-asbestos-suit-names-46-companies-for-alleged-asbestos-exposure

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Lamp Wick – Asbestos Products –Asbestos History

     

    A Brief History of Asbestos

    Posted: Aug 03, 2008

     

    Asbestos is a naturally-occurring fibrous mineral ofmetamorpic hydrous magnesium silicate. The term "metamorphic" is used to describe a process of extreme heat and pressure which creates specific secondary patterns of minerals with new chemical and/or physical properties. 

    As the primary rock is heated andrecooled, silicate crystals align in long rows of mineral fibers, which easily separate into tiny shards thinner than a human hair. Asbestos fibers are not a health risk as long as they are undisturbed. However, when asbestos is undergoes natural weathering, or is mined and processed, the microscopic particles waft into the air and cause disease if they are inhaled. 

    Asbestosis occurs when aninhaled asbestos particle irritates the body's naturaldefence mechanisms, causing inflammation and scarring which eventually restricts lung function. Mesothelioma is a malignant tumor of the membranes surrounding the heart, lungs and abdominal cavity. Asbestos can also cause cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, larynx, stomach, lung and lymphoid tissue.

    Asbestos exposure can also cause non-fatal illnesses such as asbestos warts, caused when asbestos fibers are lodged in the skin, causing lumps of scar tissue to form around the irritant in the same manner as they do in the lungs to cause asbestosis; pleural plaques, discrete, sometimes calcified fibrous lesions which can be seen on X-rays but are too small to cause breathing impairment; and diffuse pleural thickening, which can cause breathing impairment if it is extensive.

    Due to its fire resistant properties, asbestos has been used historically for household and industrial purposes. It has been found woven into burial cloths in ancientEgypt, and Charlemagne reportedly had a tablecloth made of asbestos which he would throw into a fire to clean. 

    In World War II asbestos was considered so important by the War Department that it was considered a strategic material, and many American workers were exposed in the World War II boom in shipbuilding. After the war, it was widely used in the construction industry.

    In modern Western society, it was used for such diverse purposes aslamp wicks, brake shoes, oven insulation, electrical hotplate wiring and home insulation, roofing and flooring. For instance, some kinds of vermiculite used in home insulation into the 1970s contained asbestos. The EPA banned this product in 1977. 

    When a home owner discovers asbestos in an old home, it should not be a cause for immediate panic. If the asbestos looks intact and is notpulverised, it is best to leave it alone. However, because of legal liability, schools and businesses containing asbestos usually must undergo a costly removal process, hazardous in itself because disturbing the stable asbestos product causes fibers to fill the air. Special equipment must be used to insure that the removal process does not cause health problems where non existed before.

    Mostindustrialised nations have reduced or banned the use of asbestos for at least 30 years and now use fiberglass or woven ceramic fiber as a substitute, but since asbestos-caused disease has a latency period of up to 50 years, patients are still presenting with these illness today. Every year inAmerica, approximately 3000 new cases ofmesothelioma are diagnosed, and 550 deaths occurs due to asbestosis. According to the March 1991 Report of the Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation, asbestos exposure has caused the deaths of approximately 200,000 to 265,000 Americans.

    Asbestos use peaked in theUnited States in 1973, when 1 million tons of the material were used. The EPA attempted to institute a complete legal ban on the use of asbestos products in 1989; however, this ban was largely eviscerated by the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991, and some restricted use of asbestos, albeit in fewer products than before, resumed. Therefore, even today some workers are being exposed to this toxic material. 

    Asbestos is a serious continuing concern to the Environmental Protection Agency, and their website has detailed information on asbestos and its removal.

    Concerns about the health risks of asbestos exposure date back to 1898, when the Chief Inspector of Factories of theUnited Kingdom reported to Parliament in his Annual Report about the "evil effects of asbestos dust". He noted that the "sharp, glass like nature of the particles" when allowed to remain suspended in the air, "have been found to be injurious, as might have been expected". In 1906 a British Parliamentary Commission confirmed the first cases of asbestos-related deaths in British factories and called for improved ventilation and other safety measures. In 1918 an American insurance company produced a study showing premature deaths in the asbestos industry in theUnited States and in 1926 the Massachusetts Industrial Accidents Board processed the first successful claim by a sick asbestos worker.

    Today, lawsuits claiming compensation for asbestos-related illnesses are a growth industry in the legal profession. An internet search of "mesothelioma lawyer" yields 1,910,000 results. The original manufacturers of asbestos products have long since been driven into Chapter 11 bankruptcy; plaintiffs have now turned to suing corporations with peripheral connections to asbestos products. More than 70 American corporations have filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in due to asbestos liability claims.

    Since the 1970's, approximately 6% of all lawsuits filed in American courts have been asbestos-related. The lawsuits now facing the courts have been described as "an elephantine mass" by the US Supreme Court, and are expected to cost between 200 to 275 billion dollars to settle. Asbestos liability is one of the largest issues facing the global insurance industry today. 

    Most epidemiological studies expected the number of lawsuits to peak in the 1990s, but this has not occurred, either because of the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases, or because legal action is becoming more popular among asbestos-exposed members of the public due to high-profile legal cases and widespread advertising by attorneys who specialize in such cases.

    Many complaints have been made by representatives of industries facing lawsuits and the insurance companies who will be expected to pay them that the asbestos-lawsuit industry is rife with fraud, with less that half of all payouts reaching the plaintiffs. Aggressive, ambulance-chasing lawyers are said to exaggerate medical disability and coach clients on their testimony. 

    The group of plaintiffs includes not only ill people, but also those who have merely have a history of asbestos exposure and want compensation for potential future health risks. According to theAmericanAcademy ofActuraries Mass Tort Work Group, more than 100 million Americans have been exposed to asbestos in their workplace during the past century.

    (ArticlesBaseSC #507855)

    Christian Ward - About the Author:

    Christian is an author of several articles pertaining to No Win No Fee, Compensation Claims, Work Accident Claims, Personal Injury Claims and other legal articles.


    Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/personal-injury-articles/a-brief-history-of-asbestos-507855.html#ixzz0pGoSBlC1 
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

     

    http://www.articlesbase.com/personal-injury-articles/a-brief-history-of-asbestos-507855.html
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products –Asbestos Company - Mesothelioma Jury Award

    Second hand exposure to asbestos dust is basis for claim

    06/08/2005

    Ronald Lunsford said his father worked for the Brower Company in 1958 at a Texaco refinery inAnacortes,Wash. and frequently returned home from work with asbestos dust on his clothes, hat, car, and tools.Lundsford claimed he was exposed to that dust.

    Years later, Lunsford wasdiagnosed withmesothelioma. Because he had been exposed to asbestos over a number of years from a variety of sources, Lunsford sued several parties, includingSaberhagen Holdings Inc., which was the successor of Brower. Lunsford alleged Brower/Saberhagen providedasbestoscontaining insulation to the refinery where his father worked, and thatSaberhagen should be held strictly liable for any injuries caused to him by the Brower asbestos.

    Saberhagen asked theWashington trial court to grant judgment before trial, asserting the company could not be held strictly liable for Lunsford's injuries because he was not a user of theasbestos products. Product-liability law provides for strict liability for "one who sells any product in a defective condition reasonably dangerous to the user or consumer," and makes the seller liable "for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer."

    The trial court concluded that Lunsford was not a user ofSaberhagen's asbestos, thus granted its request for summary judgment. Lunsford appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, which noted some state courts expand the coverage of the product-liability law to include bystanders and other persons the manufacturer could reasonably foresee would come into contact with its product. The court reinstated Lunsford's claim stating, "The question for the jury is whether it was reasonable for the manufacturer to foresee that Lunsford would be exposed to its product through his father."

    At trial, the court noted Lunsford had the burden of showing it was foreseeable he would come into contact withSaberhagen'sproduct, theproduct was unreasonably dangerous, andhe was injured by the product.

    Lunsford v.Saberhagen Holdings Inc., 106 P.3d 808 (Wash.App. 2005), Court of Appeals ofWashington, Feb. 14, 2005.

     

    http://www.americanmachinist.com/304/Issue/Article/False/9537/Issue

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Fibers– Asbestos Products – Asbestos Related Disease

    Tennessee man claims mesothelioma in suit 
    11/5/2008 11:10 AM by Kelly Holleran 

     

    ATennessee man and his wife have filed an asbestos suit against 111 defendant corporations, claiming themesothelioma with which the man was diagnosed was wrongfully caused.

    Charles and Elizabeth Summey claim Charles was diagnosed with the disease July 23, according to a lawsuit filed Oct. 29 in Madison County Circuit Court.

    They say Charles worked from from 1950 until 1954 in the U.S. Navy, from 1955 until 1957 as a stockman at Magnavox and from 1957 until 1992 as a machine attendant/production worker at RCA.

    They state Charles's exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants, according to the lawsuit.

    They claim his disease was caused after he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbedasbestos fibers. 

    The Summeys allege the asbestos-related disease disabled and disfigured Charles and has caused substantial medical costs. Charles also has and will continue to experience physical pain and mental anguish, they claim in the lawsuit.

    Mesothelioma hindered and prevented Charles from pursuing his normal course of employment, according to the suit. 

    As a result, he lost large sums of money, the Summeys claim.

    Because of the disease,Elizabeth claims she has been deprived of the companionship, society and services of Charles.

    In the 11-count lawsuit, the couple is seeking sums in excess of $100,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of $100,000, economic damages in excess of $150,000, compensatory damages in excess of $150,000, and for other relief the Court deems appropriate.

    They also seek punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Ferris Kimball Company, LLC, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Sprinkmann Insulation, Inc., and Young Insulation Group ofSt. Louis for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts in the future.

    They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates inAlton.

    Madison County Circuit Court case number: 08-L-1016.

    http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/215690-tennessee-man-claims-mesothelioma-in-suit
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Fibers – Asbestos Exposure – $30.3 Million Mesothelioma Verdict

     

    N.J. Court Affirms Record $30.3 Million Award in Asbestos Exposure Case

    New Jersey Law Journal

    April 06, 2010

     

    ANew Jersey appeals court on Monday upheld a$30.3 million verdict in anasbestos-exposure mesothelioma case, the largest known award in the state.

    The defendants lost on every issue, including the standard of causation to be applied in light of the plaintiff's short history of working withasbestos-laden materials.

    The suit, Buttitta v. Allied Signal, A-5263-07, was brought by Susan Buttitta whose husband, Mark, a 50-year-old advertising executive fromGlenRidge, died from mesothelioma in 2002, a year after he was diagnosed.

    In February 2008, aBergenCounty jury awarded damages of $8 million for pain and suffering; $2 million for loss of consortium; $9,281,660 for lost earnings; $2,030,544 for loss of services; and $3 million to each of Buttitta's three daughters for loss of parental care.

    Dozens of companies were sued but only two -- Borg-Warner Corp. and Asbestos Corp. Ltd. -- were the left by the time of the verdict. Two others, C.L. Zimmerman Co. and Honeywell International, settled during trial, while General Motors Corp. settled beforehand, all three on confidential terms.

    The suit combined direct exposure claims characteristic of traditional asbestos litigation with indirect or "take home" exposure, as recognized by the state Supreme Court in Olivo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 186 N.J. 394 (2006).

    Buttitta was allegedly exposed as a child to asbestos by his father, who handled brakes and clutches containing asbestos working at a GM warehouse inBloomfield and carried the fibers home on his work clothes.

    Buttitta also encountered asbestos directly in the early 1970s, when he was in college and spent summers and winter breaks working at a GM warehouse inEnglewood handling auto parts.

    On appeal, Borg-Warner and Asbestos Corp. raised such issues as what standard of causation applies in a mesothelioma case; whether a preliminary hearing was needed to admit testimony of the plaintiff's expert; whether liability should be allocated against the settling defendants; and whether remittitur should have been granted.

    On causation, the appeals judges agreed with Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti that the "frequency, regularity and proximity" test for asbestosis cases should be viewed differently in the context of a claim involving mesothelioma which, unlike asbestosis, can develop from infrequent exposure to a relatively small amount of asbestos.

    Thus, Buttitta's "rather brief work history" with asbestos was sufficient to establish medical causation of mesothelioma 30 years later, Judges Francine Axelrad, Clarkson Fisher and Paulette Sapp-Peterson held in a per curiam unpublished opinion.

    Another causation-related issue was Martinotti's decision to allow deposition testimony from an unrelated case inTexas to be read to the jury.

    Part of Borg-Warner's defense was that its asbestos-related products were not present in the GM warehouse when Buttitta worked there. It was tough to prove because Borg-Warner had destroyed its records of sales to GM facilities inNew Jersey when it got out of the clutch business.

    The disputed testimony was from John Froning, former manager of GM's clutch and manual transmission group, who testified in theTexas case that from the early 1960s to the mid-1980s Borg-Warner was GM's "prime" supplier of clutches.

    Borg-Warner tried to keep out Froning's testimony as irrelevant, but the appeals court agreed with Martinotti that the real question was whether the testimony was too circumstantial, which was for the jury to decide.

    The panel also saw no merit in Borg-Warner's argument that Martinotti should have held a hearing on whether to admit the testimony of plaintiff's experts. The company called "novel and unsupported" their opinions thatasbestos fibers in Buttitta's biopsied lung tissue were consistent with occupational rather than background exposure, that there was no safe level of exposure and that Buttitta's exposure caused his mesothelioma.

    The appeals court said it didn't matter that no expert could identify the specific asbestos-containing product causing the mesothelioma, given Buttitta's testimony about having handled dust-covered boxes and automobile parts.

    The judges also rejected the argument that part of the verdict should be allocated against settling defendants GM, Honeywell and Zimmerman, finding no error in Martinotti's denial of a request to include them on the verdict sheet. There was insufficient evidence to allocate liability, the court said, despite evidence that Buttitta was exposed to asbestos-containing parts made by all three and the fact that a reasonable jury could conclude that those other parts were concurrent causes of his death.

    Borg-Warner also lost its argument that the $11,030,544 awarded for loss of spousal and parental services was excessive and should have been remitted to $1,088,754, the amount set by the plaintiff's expert.

    The appeals judges deferred to Martinotti's "feel of the case" in denying remittitur, saying the award "may have been generous, as recognized by the judge, but it was based on the undisputed evidence that Mark was an active and engaged father, and would have been expected to provide significant intangible services to his children such as guidance, training and counseling."

    Asbestos Corp., a Quebec, Canada, company that supplied asbestos to GM and Zimmerman, unsuccessfully appealed rulings that found New Jersey courts had personal jurisdiction over the company and imposed sanctions -- striking its answer and defenses and limiting its role at trial -- for its failure to comply with discovery rulings that allegedly clashed with Quebec law.

    Arnold Lakind, of Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader in Lawrenceville who argued the appeal for the plaintiff, says he is not aware of a larger mesothelioma verdict in the state.

    The second largest one he knows of is also one of his cases, a $7.8 million verdict against ExxonMobil in May 2008. Plaintiff Bonnie Anderson claimed she contracted mesothelioma from laundering clothing worn by her husband to his job at the Exxon Bayway Refinery inElizabeth. Oral argument of ExxonMobil's appeal is set for April 26.

    Borg-Warner's attorney, Paul Zidlicky of Sidley Austin inWashington,D.C., declines comment. The company, now known as Burns International Services Corp., was also represented by Norah Grimbergen of Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas inNew Brunswick.

    Deborah Knight, of Goldfein & Joseph inPhiladelphia, the lawyer for Asbestos Corp., did not return a call.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447541716
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products – Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuit

    Asbestos Lawsuit Goes to Trial

    Products caused cancer, suit claims

    Apr 14, 2004 |Indiana Gazette

     

    A product-liability lawsuit filed by a dying retiree of the Fisher Scientific Co. almost four years ago has made its way to trial this week in the Indiana County Court.

    The suit filed by Joseph Carl Smith of Homer City RD 3 has been consolidated with claims that two other retired Fisher Scientific workers, Stanley Maschak of Shelocta RD 3 and John Lee Harris ofIndiana, who also contracted cancer from exposure to asbestos in Fisher Scientific's plant alongIndian Springs Road inWhiteTownship.

    Smith and his wife, Concetta, filed suit in July 2000, about three months after Smith had beendiagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable cancer of the lining of the lungs. Smith, 69, died in February 2001.

    Joan Maschak filed a series of three lawsuits in 2000 and 2001, following her husband's death at age 69 from mesothelioma in November 1999.

    Harris, 68, initiated his case in November 2000, less than three months after surgeons removed most of his right lung to prevent the spread of lung cancer. An attorney said Tuesday that Harris is in remission.

    About 60 companies were named as defendants in each of the suits, but lawyers representing only two of them are putting up a defense against the claims in the trial this week.

    The suits accused the companies of manufacturing or supplyingasbestos-containing products that Smith, Maschak and Harris used in the assembly of medical and laboratory equipment in the Fisher plant. Fisher Scientific was not named as a defendant becausePennsylvania law prohibits workers from suing their employers.

    On Monday, at least eight attorneys were at the defense table in Judge Gregory Olson's courtroom, helping to select the jury. When the trial opened Tuesday morning, only three lawyers remained to defend Pittsburgh-area industrial suppliers, Taylored Industries Inc. of Harmarville and Pittsburgh Gage and Supply Co., which now is owned by IU North America Inc.

    Many of the claims against the other defendant companies had been dismissed "with prejudice" or "without prejudice" and, in some cases, the court had granted motions for summary judgment against them, according to court records. But attorneys on both sides declined to discuss whether the other companies had reached settlements with the plaintiffs.

    In his opening statement Tuesday, an attorney representing Harris and Concetta Smith, told the jury that although Taylored Industries and Pittsburgh Gage simply furnishedasbestos-containing products that were made by other companies, they were just as responsible as the manufacturers to provide sufficient warning of the dangers of asbestos to the Fisher Scientific Co. workers who used the products.

    Theattorney who represents Joan Maschak, said the men assembled ovens, furnaces, fume hoods and hot plates using insulating panels shipped to Fisher by Taylored Industries and were sickened by breathing microscopic fibers of asbestos from the panels. Beachler also said the men worked in the vicinity of pipes covered with asbestos-containing insulation furnished by Pittsburgh Gage.

     

    Indiana Gazette
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products– $10 Million Mesothelioma Verdict

    Jury awards shipyard worker's widow $10M

    Jul 27, 2006 | AP

     

    A jury awarded $10.4 million to the widow of a former shipyard worker who died of lung cancer after four years of working with materials that contained asbestos.

    The Newport News Circuit Court verdict in Wanda Jones' wrongful death lawsuit against three companies that manufactured the materials was handed down Wednesday, the first anniversary of the death of 60-year-old Buddy Jones.

    "It's a mixed day," Wanda Jones said. "At least there's been some justice and recognition for what he went through, certainly through no fault of his own. He just went to work and did what he was trained to do on the job."

    Her attorney, Robert Hatten, called the verdict a landmark because one-third of the judgment will come from John Crane Inc., which has refused to settle other asbestos cases.

    "A lot of these companies now accept responsibility and settle these cases regularly," said the palntiff's attorney, who has represented thousands of shipyard workers exposed to asbestos. "I hope this verdict will make companies like John Crane change their corporate attitude."

    Attorneys for John Crane, a unit of British manufacturer Smiths Group PLC, said the company's products could not have harmed workers.

    "We defend cases because we believe in the safety of the product," attorney Ed Mueller said. "If you were sitting here right now, I'd take a piece out and put it around my neck and wear it home."

    Mueller said the company, which stopped makingproducts with asbestos in the 1980s, will appeal the verdict.

    The judgment is split with two other companies: Denver's Johns Manville Corp., a unit of billionaire investor Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. that makes roofing, insulation and other industrial materials; and Garlock Sealing Technologies, a Palmyra, N.Y., unit of EnPro Industries Inc. in Charlotte, N.C.

    Buddy Jones wasdiagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused almost exclusively by asbestos. Because the cancer can lie dormant for 20 to 50 years, some older shipyard workers are just realizing the effects of their asbestos exposure.

    Dr. John C. Maddox testified at the three-week trial that he has seen about 500 mesothelioma patients in his practice atRiversideRegionalMedicalCenter.

    Jones spent four years sealing pumps and making gaskets at Newport News Shipbuilding now Northrop Grumman Newport News in the 1960s before returning to college and becoming a computer programmer inRichmond. When he suddenly got sick in late 2004, his doctor thought it was pneumonia. Then he found the tumors in Jones' lungs. Jones died within a year.

    The shipyard stopped usingproducts containing asbestos the mid 1980s.

     

    Associated Press

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products – Second-Hand Exposure - Mesothelioma Lawsuit

    Court Revives 'Second-Hand' Asbestos Case

     

    Dec 3, 2004 |New York Law Journal

     

    The Port Authority of New York andNew Jersey may be liable for injuries resulting from "second-hand" exposure to asbestos at its work sites, the Appellate Division, First Department, ruled yesterday.

    Reversing Justice Helen E. Freedman's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Port Authority, the appellate court concluded that the Manhattan Supreme Court "erred in holding that the Port Authority owed no duty to the wife as a matter of law on the ground that an employer's duty to provide employees with a safe workplace did not extend to non-employees exposed to asbestos off premises."

    Elizabeth Holdampf, a 59-year-old housewife fromQueens, initiated an action against the Port Authority and more than 20 other defendants after beingdiagnosed in 2001 with mesothelioma, a usually fatal form of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos dust. All of the defendants except for the Port Authority � mostly manufacturers of asbestos or products that require asbestos � have settled or been dismissed from the case.

    Ms. Holdampf's husband, John, worked as a mechanic at the Port Authority from 1960 until 1996 and was exposed to asbestos at at least eight of its sites, including theWorldTradeCenter, theHolland andLincoln tunnels and all three major New York-area airports.

    Mr. Holdampf, who does not have cancer, wore his work clothes home each evening, Mrs. Holdampf alleges, and her repeated exposure while laundering his contaminated clothing for 30 years caused her cancer.

    Ms. Holdampf claimed that the Port Authority was negligent for "failing to warn its employees and 'other persons who were reasonably and foreseeably known to come into contact with theasbestos-containing products' against the dangers associated with exposure to asbestos," Justice Luis A. Gonzalez wrote in Holdampf v. A.C.S. Inc., 3478.

    The decision will be published Thursday.

    In its motion for summary judgment, the Port Authority contended that liability did not attach because Ms. Holdampf's exposure was not connected to her personally being employed at any Port Authority site. Neither common law nor statutory duty extends to non-employees, the defense argued, citing Widera v. Ettco Wire and Cable Corp., 204 AD 2d 306.

    In a one-sentence short order form, the Supreme Court granted the Port Authority's motion, "based on [the] Widera case and absence of duty to plaintiffs."

    In a 21-page ruling overturning that decision, the appeals panel relied on the principles of foreseeability that descend from the seminal case Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 248 NY 339.

    In deciding on duty of care, Justice Gonzalez said, a court should look at such factors as the relationship of the parties, whether the accident was foreseeable and, citing Palsgraf, "whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm."

    The Port Authority ignored this line of precedent, Justice Gonzalez wrote, and based its application for summary relief "almost exclusively on the Widera rationale that an employer owes no duty of care to non-employees outside the workplace."

    That was misguided, the panel found, since Widera was distinguishable. That case, filed on behalf of an infant plaintiff who had been exposed to chemicals as a result of a pregnant mother's washing of work clothes, "involved the unique question of a tortfeasor's liability to an infant for injuries occurring while in utero."

    The court also declined to "subscribe to such a narrow view of common-law negligence" as Widera's, one that precludes liability from extending "to any non-employees for injuries resulting from dangerous substances escaping from its premises."

    Attorneys for the Port Authority could not be reached for comment.

     

    New York Law Journal
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Texas – $5.2 Million Mesothelioma Verdict

     

    Worker's Family Wins $5.2 Million Asbestos Verdict

     

    Feb 24, 2004 | AP A jury awarded $5.2 million in damages Tuesday to the family of a refinery worker who died of lung disease that he blamed on exposure to asbestos-laden insulation made by a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.

    The jury in El Paso County deliberated about two hours before returning the verdict against Quigley Co.

    Lawyers for the family of Luis Ytuarte Sr. said during a weeklong trial that he became ill after many years of handling a powdered insulation that Quigley made to protect furnaces, pipes and boilers.

    Ytuarte was an insulator, brick mason and laborer in a Phelps Dodge Corp. copper refinery inEl Paso from 1948 through the mid-1980s.

    He wasdiagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure, in February 2002 and died nine months later at age 77.

    A lawyer for the Ytuarte family, said Quigley officials knew about the dangers of the asbestos in the insulation for years but continued to sell the product until 1974.

    "It boils down to the jury feels you have a company that chose profit over safety and worker health," said the Ytuarte family lawyer.

    The jury awarded the family $2.7 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages.

    The award will be reduced by the amount that the family has received in settlements from other companies that madeasbestos-containing products used at the plant,Moreno said. He estimated those settlements totaled about $500,000.

    A separate lawsuit by the family against Phelps Dodge is scheduled to go to trial in October in the same courtroom of Judge Javier Alvarez.

     

    Associated Press

     

    February 25, 2004 -Texas jury awards asbestos victim $5.2M

     

    ATexas jury has ordered an insulation manufacturer to pay the family of a deceased refinery worker $5.2 million in damages (Ytuarte v. Quigley Co. Inc.). The deceased worked as an insulator, mason and laborer for Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. from 1948 through the mid 1980s and frequently handled insulation, called Insulag, used on pipes, boilers and furnaces. Insulag was manufactured by Quigley Corp. The plaintiffs allege that the company knew as early as 1959 that the asbestos contained in Insulag posed a health threat but continued to manufacture and sell Insulag until 1974. The plaintiff died one year after being diagnosed with mesothelioma at age 77. The jury ordered Quigley Corp. to pay $2.706 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages. Other defendants which manufacturedasbestos-containing products used at the Phelps Dodge facility had previously settled their liability for $500,000. The award against Quigley will be reduced by the amount obtained in the previous settlements.

     

    Associated Press, PR Leased Line on 02/24/2004

     

    https://www.facworld.com/Facworld/ENVPOLL.NSF/FacWorld/February2004North%20America?OpenDocument&Ref=HotTopics

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products – $700,000 Mesothelioma Verdict 

     

    MESOTHELIOMA VERDICT: JURY AWARDS $700,000

    2009-08-06 14:52:13 (GMT) (WiredPRNews.com - Mesothelioma Asbestos, Press Releases)

    Dallas, Texas (Mesothelioma Cancer News) — Case Style: Estelle Firth, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Thomas Firth, deceased; Kimberly Horner and Donna Reynolds, vs. AGCO Corporation, et al., In the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County South Carolina; Cause No: 2007-CP-40-02580

    Jury Verdict: $ 700,000.00

    Plaintiff(s): Thomas Firth, deceased; Estelle Firth, Kimberly Horner and Donna Reynolds.

    Defendant: Garlock Sealing Technology, LLC

    Verdict Date: June 26, 2009

    Facts: Thomas Firth, a 72-year oldSouth Carolina resident, suffered from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. Firth wasdiagnosed with mesothelioma in November, 2006 and died from this fatal disease on July 13, 2007.

    Tom Firth’s only known exposure to asbestos happened at Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, in the 1950s where he worked for less than a year. He was a mechanic’s assistant on a battery of Coke ovens and worked with Garlock gaskets and packing on the many pumps and vales associated with the Coke ovens.

    Following less than 5 hours of deliberations, the jury returned a $700,000 dollar verdict in favor of the Firth family. The jury found that the Garlock gaskets and packing were a substantial factor in causing Thomas Firth’s mesothelioma and death. The jury concluded that the company negligently failed to warn Thomas Firth and others of the inherent dangers of working with theirasbestos products.

    “We are so happy for Firth family. While Garlock has admitted outside of the court room that their products can cause cancer they refuse to do so in the court room. It was satisfying to hear the jury unanimously find that Garlock’sasbestos products were dangerous and that Garlock is responsible for this terrible loss to the Firth family,” said Chris Panatier, lead counsel for the Firth family.

    Plaintiff attorneys: Chris Panatier & Jessica Dean; Simon, Eddins & Greenstone, LLP,Dallas,Texas.

    Defense attorneys: Tim Bouch and Kevin Ward; Leath, Bouch, Crawford and Von Keller, LLP,Charleston,South Carolina.

    Judge: Honorable Larry Patterson

    Plaintiff experts: Dr. Arnold Brody (cell biologist); Dr. Edwin Holstein (Occupational Medicine); and Steve Hays (Industrial Hygienist).

    FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL ABOUT THE FIRTH CASE CONTACT JESSICA DEAN (214) 276-7680.

    FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT MESOTHELIOMA AND ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, VISIT www.SEGLaw.com.

     

    http://www.wiredprnews.com/2009/08/06/mesothelioma-verdict-jury-awards-700000_200908065024.html
     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products - $53.5 Million Asbestos Verdict

    Honeywell Says Asbestos Verdict Was More Than It Had Disclosed

    By ALEX BERENSON
    Published: April 18, 2002

    Honeywell International appears to have misinformed analysts and shareholders about how much of a $53.5 million verdict it is responsible for paying in the case of a man who died of a cancer caused by asbestos.

    When the judgment was announced on Feb. 8 in a Manhattan court, Honeywell's stock dove as much as 11 percent during the day, shaving $3 billion off its market value. Honeywell's shares quickly rebounded after the company said it had been found liable for less than $1.1 million of the verdict, a figure that made its way into Wall Street analysts' reports. But the company's statement immediately raised questions among lawyers who had followed the case but were not involved in it. Those lawyers, who included both plaintiff and defense attorneys, said the company's true responsibility was much greater.

    Honeywell now says that it must pay at least $11 million of the judgment, according to Peter M. Kreindler, its general counsel. Mr. Kreindler said Honeywell planned to appeal the verdict and had not misled investors about its size. The company does not face financially significant liability from asbestos cases, he said, and has $2 billion in asbestos insurance.

    Although $11 million is minor for a company Honeywell's size, investors are nervous about Honeywell's asbestos liabilities. Last winter, investors punished the stocks of several major companies like Halliburton and 3M after a series of multimillion-dollar asbestos verdicts. The companies generally say that they do not expect the litigation to damage their financial health, but most have not discussed their liabilities in detail.

    Honeywell faces about 50,000 asbestos injury claims, including nearly 1,000 claims from people suffering from the cancer in this case, mesothelioma. The North American Refractories Company, a former unit of AlliedSignal, which merged with Honeywell in 1999, made bricks that contained asbestos. That business faces an additional 116,000 asbestos claims and filed for bankruptcy in January.

    In addition, Honeywell may be an especially ripe target for plaintiffs because a manager at Bendix, the Honeywell subsidiary that is the target of the suits because it makes brake linings that once contained asbestos, wrote in a 1966 letter that his response to concerns about asbestos was: ''If you have enjoyed a good life while working withasbestos products why not die from it.''

    Based in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell makes everything from specialty chemicals to electronic equipment for aircraft. The company has 115,000 employees and a market value of nearly $33 billion.

    The judgment in February, the largest ever for a single plaintiff in an asbestos case, was awarded to Patricia Brown, the wife of Stephen Brown. Mr. Brown, a former brake mechanic and coast guardsman, died of mesothelioma in December 2000.

    The jury found Bendix 2.35 percent responsible for Mr. Brown's death. Under most circumstances, that finding would mean Honeywell is responsible for paying 2.35 percent, or $1.26 million, of the verdict under New York state law.

    In his comments on the case, Thomas B. Crane, a Honeywell spokesman, emphasized the 2.35 percent figure to reporters and analysts. Mr. Crane said Honeywell's portion of the verdict ''was 2.3 percent,'' according to the Dow Jones Newswires. Bloomberg News reported that Mr. Crane had ''estimated the amount at about $1.06 million.''

    Wall Street analysts who follow Honeywell accepted the company's explanation and figures.

    Harriet C. Baldwin, an analyst for Deutsche Bank, wrote in a report on Feb. 11 that Honeywell's share of the case was $1.1 million and would be covered by insurance. In an interview this week, Ms. Baldwin recalled that ''that verdict was just over $1 million.'' Similarly, Phua K. Young, an analyst for Merrill Lynch, wrote, referring to the company by its stock symbol, that ''according to HON, if they are successful the possible monetary outcome for the company could be something less (possibly materially less) than the current share of $1.2 million.''

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/business/honeywell-says-asbestos-verdict-was-more-than-it-had-disclosed.html?pagewanted=1

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos - Asbestos Products - Asbestos Lung Cancer
    Judge Overturns $5.6M Award in Asbestos Case

    By JEFF GORMAN 

    LOS ANGELES (CN) - A couple's $5.6 million judgment in an asbestos liability case was wiped away by aCalifornia appeals court.

    Edward and Carol Walton won their case for negligence and strict liability over the William Powell Co. The Waltons had contended that Edward had contracted lung cancer from asbestos-laden materials associated with valves that were made by Powell.

    Walton worked with the materials during his service in the Navy from 1946 to 1968. He spent the next 31 years running a painting company, during which time he also worked with asbestos-laden products. The Waltons sued 46 defendants, but Powell was the only one remaining by the middle of the trial, and the only one ordered to pay the $5.6 million judgment.

    On appeal, Justice Nora Manella ruled that Powell was not liable for Walton's injuries, and overturned the award. She ruled that Edward was injured by the asbestos insulation around Powell's valves, not by the valves themselves. "Powell supplied none of theasbestos products to which Edwards was exposed, and its valves had no defect rendering Powell liable for the injuries that Walton may have sustained through exposure toasbestos products from other sources," she wrote.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/26/26720.htm

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Containing Products - $10.9 Million Dollar Asbestos Verdict

     

    $10.9 Million Asbestos Verdict

    December 10, 2007

    On December 7th, a jury inLos Angeles found in favor of Plaintiff Mr.Pelleys in the amount of $10.9 million, for injuries the jury foundwere caused, in part, by defendant John Crane company'sasbestos-containing products.  Defendant John Crane was found 25% "at fault", which will result in a Judgment in the amount of 25% of the "non-economic" damages, as well as all of the economic damages not off-set by prior settlements.  The jury also found the necessary prerequisites for imposition of punitive damages.  That portion of the trial begins today. 

    Plaintiff is represented by the Simon,Eddins law firm, with principal offices inTexas.

    http://bradams.typepad.com/toxics_defense/2007/12/109-million-asb.html

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products – $9 Million Dollar Asbestos Wrongful Death Verdict

    San Francisco Jury Awards 9,057,775 for Wrongful Death

    On November 19, 2008, aSan Francisco jury awarded a total of $9,057,775 to the widow, sons and daughter of two pipefitters who died of an asbestos cancer. The jury rendered their verdict against Plant Insulation Company, formerly known as Plant Asbestos Company.

    Jolene Mudgett, the daughter of Joseph Sandra, was awarded $1,250,000 for the death of her father, who succumbed to mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungswhose only established caused is that of inhaled exposure to asbestos fibers. Mr. Sandra was 87 years old at the time of his death. Mr. Sandra is survived by his daughter, Jolene Mudgett, his son, John Sandra, and his wife, Molly Sandra.

    Plant Insulation Company was theNorthern California exclusive supplier of asbestos-containing pipecover, block and asbestos cement products, made by Fiberboard Corporation, known as "Pabco." Plant Insulation Company was a major industrial insulating contractor that exposed Mr. Sandra at a number of bay area oil refineries from 1955 to 1975. The jury found that Plant Insulation Company was found liable for failing to warn Mr. Sandra about the unsafe insulation products he was exposed to. Plant Insulation company was found to be 18% at fault, with other manufacturers, distributors and suppliers ofasbestos products, who were not present at the trial, found to be 82% at fault in causing Mr. Sandra's mesothelioma. Co-worker and eye-witness James Szuch testified for the Plaintiffs.

    Franklin Yancey died of mesothelioma at the age of 68 at theUniversity ofTexas,M.D.AndersonCancerCenter, inHouston,Texas. He was survived by his wife of 25 years, Janice Yancey, and two adult sons, Jeff Yancey and Monte Yancey. The jury awarded $7,807,775 in damages. Mr. Yancey worked atSan Francisco oil refineries in the bay area in the 1960s, and his two adult sons followed in the footsteps of their father. Mr. Yancey's co-worker and eye-witness, Vern Gosney, testified for the Yancey family. Plant Insulation company was found to be 10% at fault, with other manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of asbestos products, who were not present at the trial, found to be 90% at fault in causing Mr. Sandra's mesothelioma.

    Plaintiff's expert witnesses included Charles Ay, a career insulator and pipefitter, Dr. Barry Horn, a pulmonologist from Berkeley, California; Dr. Richard Cohen, a physician who testified regarding the state-of-the-art, from Saratoga, California; Dr. Brian Dolan, a Southern California internist; John Templin, an industrial hygienist and materials analyst from Long Beach, California; Dr. Allan Smith, an epidemiologist from Berkeley, California, and Dr. Barry Ben-Zion, an economist from Santa Rosa, California.

    http://www.mesotheliomaasbestoshelpcenter.com/legal-options-and-rights/mesothelioma-verdicts.html#Janice-Yancey-and-Jolene-Mudgett-vs.-Plant-Insulation-CompanyAsbestos Products – $9 Million Dollar Asbestos Wrongful Death Verdict

    San Francisco Jury Awards 9,057,775 for Wrongful Death

    On November 19, 2008, aSan Francisco jury awarded a total of $9,057,775 to the widow, sons and daughter of two pipefitters who died of an asbestos cancer. The jury rendered their verdict against Plant Insulation Company, formerly known as Plant Asbestos Company.

    Jolene Mudgett, the daughter of Joseph Sandra, was awarded $1,250,000 for the death of her father, who succumbed to mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungswhose only established caused is that of inhaled exposure to asbestos fibers. Mr. Sandra was 87 years old at the time of his death. Mr. Sandra is survived by his daughter, Jolene Mudgett, his son, John Sandra, and his wife, Molly Sandra.

    Plant Insulation Company was theNorthern California exclusive supplier of asbestos-containing pipecover, block and asbestos cement products, made by Fiberboard Corporation, known as "Pabco." Plant Insulation Company was a major industrial insulating contractor that exposed Mr. Sandra at a number of bay area oil refineries from 1955 to 1975. The jury found that Plant Insulation Company was found liable for failing to warn Mr. Sandra about the unsafe insulation products he was exposed to. Plant Insulation company was found to be 18% at fault, with other manufacturers, distributors and suppliers ofasbestos products, who were not present at the trial, found to be 82% at fault in causing Mr. Sandra's mesothelioma. Co-worker and eye-witness James Szuch testified for the Plaintiffs.

    Franklin Yancey died of mesothelioma at the age of 68 at theUniversity ofTexas,M.D.AndersonCancerCenter, inHouston,Texas. He was survived by his wife of 25 years, Janice Yancey, and two adult sons, Jeff Yancey and Monte Yancey. The jury awarded $7,807,775 in damages. Mr. Yancey worked atSan Francisco oil refineries in the bay area in the 1960s, and his two adult sons followed in the footsteps of their father. Mr. Yancey's co-worker and eye-witness, Vern Gosney, testified for the Yancey family. Plant Insulation company was found to be 10% at fault, with other manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of asbestos products, who were not present at the trial, found to be 90% at fault in causing Mr. Sandra's mesothelioma.

    Plaintiff's expert witnesses included Charles Ay, a career insulator and pipefitter, Dr. Barry Horn, a pulmonologist from Berkeley, California; Dr. Richard Cohen, a physician who testified regarding the state-of-the-art, from Saratoga, California; Dr. Brian Dolan, a Southern California internist; John Templin, an industrial hygienist and materials analyst from Long Beach, California; Dr. Allan Smith, an epidemiologist from Berkeley, California, and Dr. Barry Ben-Zion, an economist from Santa Rosa, California.

    http://www.mesotheliomaasbestoshelpcenter.com/legal-options-and-rights/mesothelioma-verdicts.html#Janice-Yancey-and-Jolene-Mudgett-vs.-Plant-Insulation-Company

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Products - $15 Million Asbestos Verdict

    Laurel man awarded $15M-plus verdict

    Jury finds asbestos caused lung disease

    Laurel,Mississippi - April 9, 2010 -Laurel Leader-Call

    LAUREL — A Laurel man will receive more than $15 million from a personal injury lawsuit placed against CPChem, a division ofConoco Phillips Corp.

    A Jones County Circuit Court jury Wednesday returned a $15.2 million verdict for Troy Lofton, 71, a longtime employee of the oil and well drilling industry. The trial lasted eight days.

    J. Robert Sullivan, Sr., one of Lofton’s attorneys, said Thursday that Lofton was diagnosed in 2004 was asbestosis, a lung disease caused by exposure to asbestos.

    Sullivan, a Laurel-based attorney with Sullivan & Sullivan, P.L.L.C., said CPChem knowingly shipped aproduct containing asbestos for 20 years that was used in the oil and gas well drilling industry. He said Lofton and others were exposed to the product calledFlosal, which was poured from 50 pound sacks into a hopper to mix it.

    “The dust was enveloping these workers,” he said. “There’s no way the body expels those asbestos fibers because they are so tiny. Once they get into the lungs, they’re just there. In some people, it even causes them to seize.”

    Sullivan said that he was able to prove in court thatConoco Phillips and CPChem had information thatFlosal was harmful.

    “They were still selling it to these oil well sites until 1985 when they quit,” he said.

    Sullivan noted that asbestos fibers can lie dormant in the body for sometimes up to 40 years.

    “That’s why they’re just getting sick with it now,” he said. “Asbestosis is a condition that causes the lungs to lose their ability to be elastic-like. They are filled with scar tissue and the person loses their ability to breath.”

    As a result, Lofton remains on oxygen 24 hours a day, Sullivan said.

    Lofton’s case would be bad enough on its own, but there are many other cases throughout Jones, Smith and Jefferson Davis counties.

    “These cases are just now starting to be tried inMississippi, but there’s been a lot of this same litigation inTexas in the past,” Sullivan said. “This is one of very few asbestos cases that have ever been tried inJonesCounty.”

    Attempts to reach attorneys representingConoco Phillips Corp. were unsuccessful as of press time.

    http://leadercall.com/local/x1687704245/Laurel-man-awarded-15M-plus-verdictAsbestos Products - $15 Million Asbestos Verdict

    Laurel man awarded $15M-plus verdict

    Jury finds asbestos caused lung disease

    Laurel,Mississippi - April 9, 2010 -Laurel Leader-Call

    LAUREL — A Laurel man will receive more than $15 million from a personal injury lawsuit placed against CPChem, a division ofConoco Phillips Corp.

    A Jones County Circuit Court jury Wednesday returned a $15.2 million verdict for Troy Lofton, 71, a longtime employee of the oil and well drilling industry. The trial lasted eight days.

    J. Robert Sullivan, Sr., one of Lofton’s attorneys, said Thursday that Lofton was diagnosed in 2004 was asbestosis, a lung disease caused by exposure to asbestos.

    Sullivan, a Laurel-based attorney with Sullivan & Sullivan, P.L.L.C., said CPChem knowingly shipped aproduct containing asbestos for 20 years that was used in the oil and gas well drilling industry. He said Lofton and others were exposed to the product calledFlosal, which was poured from 50 pound sacks into a hopper to mix it.

    “The dust was enveloping these workers,” he said. “There’s no way the body expels those asbestos fibers because they are so tiny. Once they get into the lungs, they’re just there. In some people, it even causes them to seize.”

    Sullivan said that he was able to prove in court thatConoco Phillips and CPChem had information thatFlosal was harmful.

    “They were still selling it to these oil well sites until 1985 when they quit,” he said.

    Sullivan noted that asbestos fibers can lie dormant in the body for sometimes up to 40 years.

    “That’s why they’re just getting sick with it now,” he said. “Asbestosis is a condition that causes the lungs to lose their ability to be elastic-like. They are filled with scar tissue and the person loses their ability to breath.”

    As a result, Lofton remains on oxygen 24 hours a day, Sullivan said.

    Lofton’s case would be bad enough on its own, but there are many other cases throughout Jones, Smith and Jefferson Davis counties.

    “These cases are just now starting to be tried inMississippi, but there’s been a lot of this same litigation inTexas in the past,” Sullivan said. “This is one of very few asbestos cases that have ever been tried inJonesCounty.”

    Attempts to reach attorneys representingConoco Phillips Corp. were unsuccessful as of press time.

    http://leadercall.com/local/x1687704245/Laurel-man-awarded-15M-plus-verdict

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
    Asbestos Containing Products – Asbestos Lawsuit

     


    Railroad worker sues over asbestos exposure
    4/12/2010 8:49 AM ByKellyHolleran  

    A former Illinois Central Railroad Company employee has filed suit against the company, alleging he has contracted an asbestos-related disease because of his work for the railroad.

    Walter V. Duffy worked for Illinois Central Railroad Company from 1952 until 1995 as a fireman and engineer, according to the complaint filed March 31 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

    Throughout his work in and around the shops, tracks, roundhouses and yards inIllinois, Duffy was exposed to asbestos dust or fibers, the suit states.

    Because of his exposure, Duffy claims he has contracted an asbestos-related disease, has suffered great pain, extreme nervousness and mental anguish and believes his illness is permanent in nature.

    Duffy has also incurred medical costs, has sustained a loss of earnings, has experienced a diminished ability to render services, society, affection, counseling and support to his family and has experienced a shortened life expectancy, according to the complaint.

    He also has a fear of contractingmesothelioma or another asbestos-caused cancer and has an increased risk of developing one of these diseases, the suit states.

    Illinois Central Railroad Company was negligent by failing to provide Duffy with a safe place to work, by failing to furnish him with safetools,by failing to warn him of the true nature of asbestos-containing products and by failing to operate the locomotive repair facility in a safe condition, according to the complaint.

    The railroad also negligently failed to provide instructions or a method for the safe use ofasbestos-containing products, the suit states.

    Duffy also claims Illinois Central Railroad Company was negligent by failing to provide him with safe and proper ventilation systems and by requiring employees to work with ultra-hazardous products.

    The company negligently failed to periodically test Duffy to determine if he was subject to any ill effects, failed to limit access to areas whereasbestos-containing products were being used, failed to provide Duffy with a separate locker for clothing worn home and failed to test products before employees used them, according to the complaint.

    In his three-count suit, Duffy is seeking a judgment in excess of $50,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems appropriate.

    He is represented by William P. Gavin of the Gavin Law Firm inBelleville, by Kip A.Harbison ofGlasser andGlasser inNorfolk and by Willard J. Moody Jr. of Moody,Strople,Kloeppel and Higginbotham inPortsmouth.

    St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 10-L-150.

    http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/225936-railroad-worker-sues-over-asbestos-exposure

     
    Share this: facebook twitter linkedin reddit stumble delicious mixx digg yahoo
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    15 Related Videos
     
    Pleural Mesothelioma: a foreseable and avoidable death
    10:01

    Pleural Mesothelioma: a foreseable and avoidabledeath

    Epidemiologic observations on an anatomical-pathologic and clinic case study from 1997 to 2006 - Service of Preventive Medicine (Head: Dr. Gerardo...

     
    Anita on Channel 7 newsAdded to
    1:26

    Anita on Channel 7news

    Anita Steiner with baby on Channel 7news

     
     
    My Wife Was Murdered
    8:45

    My Wife Was Murdered

    Wife died of Mesothelioma

     
    Mesothelioma Day
    1:57

    Mesothelioma Day

    Tribute held to mark the thousands of lives lost toMesothelioma.

     
     
    Meridian tv news report covering our May meeting
    3:01

     

    Meridian tvnews report covering our May meeting

    Meridian tvnews report covering our May meeting of the Hasag group(Hampshire asbestos support & awareness group

     
     
    Asbestos campaigners cycle from Clydebank to London
    1:53

    Asbestos campaigners cycle from Clydebank to London

     

    Paul Glanville, Katrina London and Jason Addy arrive inLondon after cycling the length ofBritain to raise awareness of the devastating impact...

     
    Libby, Montana
    2:23

    Libby, Montana

     

    where many hundreds of people are sick or have already died fromasbestos exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency calls Libby the worst case...

     
    1965 Armstong asbestos tile commercial
    1:16

    1965 Armstongasbestos tile commercial

    n 1860, Thomas M. Armstrong, the son of Scotish-Irish immigrants from Londonderry, joined with John D. Glass to open a one-room shop in Pittsburgh...

     
    Asbestos Tragedy Libby Montana 2004 USEPA
    2:36

    Asbestos Tragedy Libby Montana 2004 USEPA

    Processed vermiculite from the WR Grace Libby MT Mine contained tremolite, a form of asbestos, that was allowed to contaminate local

     


    4:38

    About theAsbestos DiseaseAwareness Organization (ADAO)
    Asbestos DiseaseAwareness Organization, ADAO, Linda Reinstein, BanAsbestos, www.adao.us

     

    8:31
    mesothelioma
    Mesothelioma is an incurableasbestos cancer. This short film was produced to raiseawareness of the issues around mesothelioma. It...

     

     

    3:08
    Dr. Irving Selikoff PioneeringAsbestos Disease Researcher
    Dr. Irving J. Selikoff was a remarkable physician and scientist who contributed to knowledge in several areas of medicine, includingasbestos...

     

     
     
     
          Home | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy      

    Disclaimer:
    Please Contact a physician with regard to health concerns.
    The materials contained on this AsbestosNewsdaily.com are for informational purposes only and do not constitute health or medical advice. Use of information on this site does not create or constitute any kind of agreement or contract between you and the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers upon which it is housed, or anyone else who is in any way connected with this site.
    Many links on Asbestosnewsdaily.com lead to other sites. AsbestosNewdaily.com does not sponsor, endorse or otherwise approve of the materials appearing in such sites. Nor is Asbestosnewsdaily.com responsible for dead or misdirected links.
    IF YOU NEED A LINK OR TEXT REMOVED FROM THIS PAGE PLEASE CONTACT removenews@asbestosnewsdaily.com. We will do our best to accommodate your request.

        Copyright 2009 - 2017
    All Rights Reserved. AsbestosNewsDaily.com
       
          Mesothelioma Lawyer