Addressing Asbestos Claims under Personal Injury
đź“Ś Overview of Asbestos Claims
Asbestos claims arise when individuals suffer injury or disease due to exposure to asbestos fibers, which can cause serious health conditions such as:
Asbestosis – Chronic lung disease caused by inhaling asbestos fibers.
Mesothelioma – Rare and aggressive cancer affecting the lining of lungs, abdomen, or heart.
Lung cancer – Increased risk in individuals exposed to asbestos, especially smokers.
Employers, manufacturers, and product suppliers can be held liable if their negligence or failure to warn caused asbestos exposure. These claims fall under personal injury tort law and sometimes occupational disease law.
đź“Ś Legal Basis for Asbestos Claims
Negligence
Plaintiffs must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached it, and caused harm.
Employers have a duty to provide safe working conditions.
Strict Liability / Product Liability
Manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products can be held strictly liable even if they were not negligent, especially for failure to warn.
Occupational Exposure and Workers’ Compensation
Many claims are brought under workers’ compensation statutes, which may limit litigation but provide guaranteed compensation for occupational diseases.
đź“Ś Key Legal Issues in Asbestos Claims
Causation
Plaintiffs must link exposure to a specific source with their illness. Latency periods can be 20–40 years, making evidence gathering challenging.
Multiple Defendants
Many cases involve multiple manufacturers, employers, and contractors. Courts may apportion liability proportionally.
Statute of Limitations
Due to long latency, some jurisdictions allow claims to start from the date of diagnosis, rather than exposure.
Punitive Damages
In cases of willful negligence, punitive damages may be awarded to deter future misconduct.
đź“Ś Key Case Laws
U.S. Cases
Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. (1973)
Landmark case where the court held manufacturers liable for failing to warn employees about asbestos hazards.
Established that duty to warn about known dangers is paramount, even if exposure occurred decades earlier.
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1981)
Court ruled that manufacturers of asbestos-containing products have strict liability for injuries caused by defective or hazardous products.
Johns-Manville Corp. Cases (1980s)
Massive litigation against asbestos manufacturers. Settlements created asbestos trust funds to compensate victims efficiently.
In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation (1990s)
Consolidated multi-district litigation to manage thousands of asbestos claims efficiently.
UK Cases
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002, UKHL)
Court held that liability could be imposed on employers even if exposure came from multiple sources, establishing a “material contribution” standard for causation.
Barker v. Corus UK Ltd (2006, UKHL)
Confirmed proportionate liability for asbestos exposure among multiple employers.
Indian Cases
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Prakash Chand (2004)
Courts recognized asbestos-related occupational disease claims under workmen compensation laws.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Addressed environmental and industrial hazards of asbestos, reinforcing liability for public health damage.
đź“Ś Steps in Addressing Asbestos Claims
Medical Documentation
Obtain medical records, diagnostic tests, and expert opinions linking illness to asbestos exposure.
Exposure History
Document workplaces, duration, and type of asbestos materials encountered.
Identify Defendants
Employers, manufacturers, product suppliers, contractors, and government entities if applicable.
Litigation or Settlement
File personal injury lawsuits, workers’ compensation claims, or pursue settlement through asbestos trust funds.
Apportion Liability
Courts may use joint and several liability or proportionate liability to assign responsibility among multiple defendants.
đź“Ś Policy and Legal Considerations
Compensation funds have been established in some jurisdictions to handle mass claims efficiently.
Occupational safety enforcement is critical to prevent future claims.
Legal reforms often focus on reducing litigation delays and ensuring fair compensation for latent diseases.
đź“Ś Conclusion
Asbestos claims are complex due to long latency, multiple exposures, and multiple defendants. Courts worldwide have established principles such as:
Duty to warn (Borel v. Fibreboard)
Material contribution to risk (Fairchild v. Glenhaven)
Proportionate liability (Barker v. Corus)
Addressing these claims requires careful medical, occupational, and legal documentation, balancing victim compensation with practical litigation management.
RELATED Blog
0 comments