The technicalities of asbestos litigation can be complicated, as anyone who has been involved in such litigation knows. This is especially true of cases where there are questions about the desirability of state or federal court for the lawsuit, and when a party tries to move litigation from the original court where it was filed.
Republican lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee will reportedly again have the opportunity to consider legislation aimed at asbestos tort reform. Last week, Texas Representative Blake Farenthold apparently re-submitted for consideration a bill called the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act. The bill was originally introduced back in 2015 and then rolled into the Further Asbestos Claim Transparency Act in 2016.
We’ve been looking in recent posts about employer responsibilities, and employee rights, when it comes to workplace accidents. These responsibilities include OSHA regulations and penalties, as well as workers’ compensation insurance responsibilities.
Previously, we began speaking generally about the workplace safety responsibilities employers have with respect to asbestos exposure. As we noted, employers are bound by various safety requirements, including those enforced by OSHA, and can face penalties for failing to abide by these rules. Employees who are harmed by an employer’s violations of these rules can and should see to it that these violations are reported to the proper authorities.
Many cases of asbestos exposure occur, or have occurred, in connection with employment. Workers who have been exposed to asbestos on the job and who, years later, develop serious asbestos-related medical conditions have the right to hold their employer responsible and to seek appropriate compensation.
While asbestos is still used in some products, its use is down quite a bit from where it once was. Prior to the late 1980s, it was used in all sorts of products. This includes: flooring products, ceiling products, wall products, roofing products, chimney products, heating/cooling system products, electrical products, welding products, auto products, turbines, kilns and ovens. Lists of some of the products within these categories that asbestos used to commonly be in can be found on our firm’s page on asbestos exposure.
In our previous post, we began looking at a recent federal court case dealing with the so-called “bare metal” defense that manufacturers often assert to disclaim responsibility for asbestos exposure.
Asbestos-related injuries and fatalities are among the most complicated, and expensive, forms of litigation in the history of the United States. Such litigation has gone through a number of changes over the years, and the courts continue to grapple with the law surrounding these cases.
While asbestos exposure has been linked to a number of serious and often fatal diseases and conditions for a number of decades, there are many misconceptions and myths surrounding the claims processes. Victims and their families may be confused about their options and the reality of their chances for financial recoveries.