Asbestos Litigation: Historic Lawyer Case to Current Challenges

News Summary

The journey of asbestos litigation began with Clarence Borel’s landmark lawsuit against major manufacturers in 1969. Despite his passing, his widow continued the fight for justice. Today, modern cases reflect ongoing challenges surrounding asbestos regulations, highlighting both victories and violations in the pursuit of public safety.

Asbestos Litigation: From Historic First Lawsuit to Modern Day Cases

In a landmark case that would change the landscape of asbestos litigation in the United States, Clarence Borel filed the first lawsuit against a company for asbestos-related injuries. Borel was a dedicated union worker residing in Groves, Texas, and spent his career working as an insulator in local refineries and shipyards. Tragically, in 1969, he developed both pulmonary asbestosis and mesothelioma—a lethal form of lung cancer.

On October 20, 1969, attorney Ward Stephenson from Orange, Texas, took up Borel’s cause, filing a lawsuit in Judge Joe Fisher’s court in the Eastern District of Texas. This groundbreaking lawsuit sought $1 million in damages from leading asbestos manufacturers, including Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation and Johns-Manville Products Corporation. Borel’s case emphasized allegations of negligence and breach of warranty against these companies, asserting that they should be held liable under the doctrine of strict liability, as outlined by the American Law Institute.

Specifically, the lawsuit invoked Section 402A of the Restatement of the Law of Torts, arguing that the products produced by these manufacturers were unreasonably dangerous due to their inadequate warnings about foreseeable dangers. This marked the first litigation in the U.S. to explore the implications of Section 402A concerning asbestos materials and their inherent dangers.

Sadly, Borel passed away on June 3, 1970, just months after his case was filed. His widow, Thelma Borel, took up the mantle of plaintiff, continuing the fight for justice. The defense posited that Borel had assumed the risk associated with asbestos exposure and claimed contributory negligence, attributing his injuries to the incomplete scientific understanding of asbestos dangers of that era. However, Stephenson countered with compelling evidence from respected medical professionals, including Dr. Irving J. Selikoff, who had already identified the hazards of asbestos.

The jury’s decision was pivotal; while they deemed Borel partly responsible for his condition, they also ruled that the asbestos manufacturers were strictly liable for the grave injuries he sustained. The jury awarded total damages of $79,436, which was subsequently reduced to $58,534, leaving Thelma with proceeds exceeding $35,000 after legal fees. The asbestos companies’ appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to contest the strict liability ruling was denied in 1974, cementing the precedence for future asbestos cases.

Modern Cases Highlighting Ongoing Asbestos Issues

$3 million by a jury after he exposed his lawsuit against D.W. Nicholson Corp. for asbestos exposure while working at Masonite Corp. in Ukiah. Groves, who worked at Masonite from 1964 to 1999, accused D.W. Nicholson of neglecting to warn employees about asbestos dangers and failing to carry out necessary cleanup interventions. The jury found D.W. Nicholson 20% responsible, while Masonite was assigned 70% of the liability.

In another notable case, two men from Washington, Ronald Chamness and Ryan Richter, were sentenced to probation for the improper removal of asbestos-containing materials, directly violating federal regulations put in place to protect public health. Chamness’s actions included failing to hire certified contractors and carelessly disposing of asbestos materials. This case underscores the ongoing challenges surrounding asbestos regulations and safety protocols.

In Buffalo Grove, Illinois, a family was forced to flee their home due to unsafe asbestos removal during repairs following a kitchen flooding incident. The chemical presence in their home raised serious health concerns, leading to a clash between what Farmers Insurance was willing to cover versus the actual remediation costs quoted by contractors. Such instances highlight the pressing need for compliance with safety regulations during construction and home renovations.

Moreover, the owners of eight senior living facilities in California recently agreed to a $1.125 million settlement for multiple violations of asbestos-related laws. Inspections revealed significant lapses in safety protocols regarding asbestos handling during construction, resulting in civil penalties and reimbursement costs as part of the settlement.

The landscape of asbestos litigation has evolved significantly since Borel’s courageous stand. From groundbreaking verdicts in courtrooms to ongoing legal challenges reflecting modern-day asbestos issues, striking a balance between industrial progress and public health remains a significant concern. The legacy of those like Clarence Borel continues to loom large, pushing for accountability and justice in the face of an enduring public health threat.