Asbestos-related lawsuits

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

I'm curious about these because every other TV ad, radio ad, and spam email concerns some mesothelioma class-action suit or something of that ilk. I don't know a whole lot on the subject--or the legalities of it--so I have a few questions

These can't be recent complaints, because haven't they stopped using asbestos YEARS ago? People aren't still working with this material, right (except for asbestos removal)?

If these are old complaints (like, really old exposures decades ago), isn't there a statute of limitations regarding bringing legal action against some of these corporations? Again, I'm not sure of the law regarding this, so I will defer to more knowledgable posters on the subject.

Either way, I definitely support the plaintiffs...I just didn't think you could sue (and win) on something 30-40 years after the fact.

[leemajors]

When I worked at the Alamo Village in Austin there was still asbestos in the ceilings, not much renovation could be done without shutting the whole place down for weeks. I left there in 05 and it was still there.

[Blake]

”......... Something you may hear about is the

statute of limitations. This is the period of

time within which you must file your

claim, or lawsuit; otherwise, your right to

sue is forfeit. Even if that time has

expired, you may still be able to make

claims against trusts that have been

established to compensate victims of

asbestos...........”

http://www.asbestos.net/asbestos-law/asbestos-exposure-and-your-legal-rights

[CosmicCowboy]

All those ads you are hearing are lawyers late to the party trolling for crumbs. The big money has already been made but there are still funds set back to pay claims. These ads are just trolling for anybody they can make a case for.

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

When I worked at the Alamo Village in Austin there was still asbestos in the ceilings, not much renovation could be done without shutting the whole place down for weeks. I left there in 05 and it was still there.

Were other employees worried about it at all? Seems like an unsafe work environment, technically.


All those ads you are hearing are lawyers late to the party trolling for crumbs. The big money has already been made but there are still funds set back to pay claims. These ads are just trolling for anybody they can make a case for.

Yeah, I agree with this, which is why I asked about it. It seems very much after-the-fact (by a longshot).

[VBM]

In Texas, there's an exception to the statute of limitations called the discovery rule. If the cause of action is "inherently undiscoverable" (i.e. person not diagnosed with meso until 20 years after he worked around it), the cause of action is deemed to have accrued when the plaintiff knew or should have known about it. A lot of times, the meso symptoms don't show themselves until years later, so you're getting these cases now where people have just been diagnosed and are linking it to their prior work.

[leemajors]

Were other employees worried about it at all? Seems like an unsafe work environment, technically.



Yeah, I agree with this, which is why I asked about it. It seems very much after-the-fact (by a longshot).

There was much unsafe about that place, but even they were scared of drilling into the ceiling.

[mavs>spurs]

why would you think that there were no legal options for people who got sick from this? the effects don't even show up for decades..how could they have possibly known to sue before.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hell, asbestos has been outlawed since the 60's and 99.9% of it has either been remediated or encapsulated pending remediation/demolition.

[Magua]

why would you think that there were no legal options for people who got sick from this? the effects don't even show up for decades..how could they have possibly known to sue before.
I didn't say there were no legal options for them...I was just curious if they could sue 30-40 years after exposure.

[mavs>spurs]

I didn't say there were no legal options for them...I was just curious if they could sue 30-40 years after exposure.

Is suing not the viable legal option in this case? I mean, if the damage done doesn't become apparent for 30-40 years, common sense would tell you sure you can sue at that time...

I mean, how would you really have known to sue 30 years ago when it happened? You don't immediately get sick with light exposure. Just seems like your brain didn't wanna do tings like det...

[CosmicCowboy]

In the original lawsuits that bankrupted the manufacturers they put a shitload of money in trust to pay future claims. At this point you don't have to fight an aggressive defense lawyer, you just have to prove you were exposed and you have the disease. I'm not even sure you would really need an attorney.