Memphis Tennessee Mesothelioma: Legal News
WE CONNECT YOU WITH EXPERIENCED MEMPHIS TENNESSEE MESOTHELIOMA LAWYERS.
Finding the right Memphis Tennessee Mesothelioma Lawyer to handle your case can be a very difficult and a time consuming task.Lawyers are very busy and may not be available to talk to you in your time of greatest need. We are here to assist you in finding an experienced Memphis Tennessee Mesothelioma Lawyer to help you with yourlegal situation.
Asbestos News Daily`sFREE Lawyer Placement Service will connect you with experienced Memphis Tennessee Mesothelioma Lawyer.
Having experienced legal representation can save you a lot of time and hard earned money.
We believe that people have the right to find the best possible legal representation from the most experienced lawyers.
We have developed relationships with the experienced Memphis Tennessee Mesothelioma Lawyers that we know will work hard to win your case.
We cannot help solve everyone's legal situation, but we can help you to know your legal options and know that we are here to help you through the process of getting the legal help that you need.
Tell us about your case and a legal placement specialist will contact you within 24-48 hours.
POST YOUR CASE. GET RESULTS!
MemphisTennessee – Asbestos Trades –Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuit
'Take home' liability could mean limitless liability for asbestos defendants
3/20/2009 12:28 PM By Staff Reports
During a recent gathering of asbestos legal professionals, aBeverly Hills conference focused on one central theme in emerging litigation trends: a new generation of problems -- connected to the last -- will mean a new wave of cases against a new slate of defendants.
With more than three decades past since the peak of asbestos manufacturing and use in theU.S., the focus of lawsuits has shifted to what is often called "secondary exposure cases." These cases are filed on behalf of a new slate of plaintiffs, many a generation removed from those that comprised the height ofasbestos litigation in the late 1990s when hundreds of thousands of cases were filed each year.
Likewise, the defendants include new businesses, most at least a step removed from the manufacturers, shipyards and refineries already forced into bankruptcy under the weight of billions paid in legal settlements.
With many of the first wave of plaintiffs deceased, and the businesses they sued bankrupt, it is no surprise the vast industry of asbestos lawyers would now be uncovering new cases along previously un-trod trails.
One such trail emerging as a potential highway of asbestos cases is take home liability cases. Commonly, these plaintiffs include everyone from children and spouses of those who worked around asbestos, babysitters who entered the employee's home, or independent contractors who worked with products containing asbestos.
Texas plaintiff attorneyShepard Hoffman described one form of take home liability extending "to those who regularly and repeatedly came in to contact with employees' work clothing consistently over a period of time."
New York attorney JohnCanoni said defendants in these cases have taken notice, raising in court their serious concern over the "specter of limitless liability."
New cases, new plaintiffs
The legal war over how courts will interpret the limits and legal responsibility in take home liability cases is now pitched in state-by-state battles. Some states, likeWashington,Tennessee,New Jersey andLouisiana have ruled that companies have a duty to protect and warn those who may become exposed to asbestos beyond their own employees, according toChicago defense attorney Jonathon Lively.
Others, notably,New York,Georgia,Kentucky,Texas,Michigan andDelaware have ruled against such duty. Many states, includingIllinois - and in whichMadisonCounty continues to be one of the larger asbestos dockets in the country -- are still hearing the cases that will determine the eventual legal precedence.
The cases that are setting the stage offer a glimpse into the next generation of clients.
"The housewife is the number one occupation listed for those now contractingmesothelioma,"West Virginia plaintiff attorney AnneKearse said.
ATennessee case involved a woman who died at the age of 24 after being exposed to asbestos from her father's work clothes. The woman was born premature and spent three months in the hospital where her father would come and hold her every day on his way home from work,Lively said.
Another case involves a plaintiff who was exposed to asbestos as a child from wrestling around with his father after work.
Canoni cited one of the most recent cases, a ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court earlier this month. Lillian Riedel sued ICI Americas, Inc., her husband's employer for nearly 30 years, for failing to warn her of the dangers of asbestos exposure from her husband's clothing.
"Does the employer owe a duty of care to the injured party who they may or may not have ever known, nor ever employed?"Canoni said.
According to court documents, the court ruled against Riedel, grantingICI's request for summary judgment "on the basis that ICI and Mrs. Riedel did not share a legally significant relationship that would create a duty ICI owed to her."
But that legal victory of the defense inDelaware is offset by plaintiff victories along similar lines in other states, notablyWashington.
Lawyers G. William Shaw and Michael K. Ryan wrote, "In a pair of closely watched asbestos cases, theWashington Court of Appeals on January 29, 2007 greatly expanded the duty to warn in asbestos cases."
The twin rulings in favor of plaintiffs found that a product manufacturer whose products do not include any asbestos is still responsible for exposure if the normal use of the product would cause them to become exposed from another source.
The court ruling "may have a direct impact on defendant manufacturers whose products may have required the use of asbestos-containing products to function properly," they wrote, which in turn, greatly expands the company's duty to warn about the exposure to asbestos. The ruling also greatly increases the pool of defendants that can be named inWashington asbestos cases.
Potential liability in states where duty to warn is expanded could soon extend to babysitters, school teachers and neighbors who could have been exposed by someone who worked around asbestos, according to asbestos conference presenters. The number of businesses who could be sued in asbestos cases is also greatly expanded, even to the point of including "mom and pop stores," one presenter at the conference said.
The cases with extended duty to warn are cropping up in asbestos dockets across the country. A brief review of cases filed recently inMadisonCounty, shows the subtle shift to the next generation of plaintiffs.
For example, among the 13 cases filed inMadisonCounty in a single week in February, few are direct lawsuits on behalf of a sick worker suing a former employer. One such example involves a lawsuit filed by Christine Warner ofTennessee on behalf of her mother whodevelopedmesotheliomaduring her work as a seamstress at House of Fashions inMemphis for more than 30 years.
But most are less specific as to when and where the person was exposed to asbestos, likely built on duty to warn case law.
Pat Montgomery ofKentucky claims he developedmesothelioma after helping his father on the family farm for six years during the 1950s. AnIllinois woman claimed in her suit filed inMadisonCounty that she developedmesothelioma after being exposed through her husband.
Defending the case
The most important steps in defending against take home liability often occur early on in how the case is framed by the courts, according to Lively. The duty to warn is often determined by whether the court sees the case as one of misfeasance, poor action to warn, or nonfeasance, no action to warn.
"How a case gets framed in front of the court is going to greatly determine how it is going to end up," Lively said during the asbestos conference.
TheDelaware ruling involving Lillian Riedel, Lively said, was an example of the court assessing the failure to warn as nonfeasance, essentially ruling they had no duty to warn her of the potential exposure from her husband's work clothes.
Other cases where courts have ruled the company had a duty to warn and acted poorly to do so have led to plaintiff victories, the case of the 24-year-old woman fromTennessee for example,Lively said.
The outcomes of these cases differ greatly from state to state.
Hoffman said that despite the changing nature of the cases, juries still focus on the plaintiff and the harm done to them.
"Juries want to find a way to help out a family," he said, arguing that plaintiff attorneys must simply show the "contributing factors to a person contractingmesothelioma," and "the basis to hold the initiating company responsible."
Companies knew the dangers of asbestos, even on clothing leaving the plant for decades, Hoffman said, citing examples of safety measures that were commonplace.
"A study in 1913 discusses worker safety, of the need for lockers and showers and a change of clothes for workers before going home," Hoffman said.
While defense attorneys often point to 1972, when OSHA issued protocols to be followed regarding asbestos exposure,Kearse said that premise can be challenged in court.
"There's a lot of information out before OSHA,"Kearse said, starting with a report in 1937 that talks about safety policies related to asbestos.
"It was known and knowable how dangerous this was to work with," she said. "West Virginia had regulations in place since 1951, but it was rarely followed, if at all."