Articles Tagged with asbestos injury attorney

A defense verdict in a recent mesothelioma lawsuit in Arizona resulted from a claim alleging illness caused by asbestos in cement pipes.mesothelioma law firm

Cement piping produced in the U.S. and Canada for several decades beginning in the 1930s often contained a mixture of cement and asbestos fibers. The pipes were durable and corrosion-resistant. But of course, asbestos is extremely toxic. Standards for asbestos cement piping in municipal water systems wasn’t enacted until 1953 by the American Water Works Association. Many of these older pipes, which have a stated shelf life of 70 years, are still being used in cities throughout America, even for delivery of drinking water. Many are slated for replacement, and the potential for new exposure of workers during the pipe breakdown and removal process. That’s because while the pipes may not be corroded to the point they pose a danger to our drinking systems (though this may depend on local environmental issues), the fibers are extremely hazardous during breakdown because the fibers have the potential to become airborne.

In the recent Arizona case, Herrera v. CertainTeed Corp., original plaintiff had worked as a pipefitter. His family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the building materials company after he developed cancer following years of inhaling dust kicked up by his work sawing asbestos cement pipes.

Jurors rejected plaintiffs’ allegations that the materials supplier was aware (or should have known) their cement pipes containing asbestos posed a health risk to workers, but failed to adequately warn them. The family had been asking jurors for $5 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages, according to CVNContinue reading

Two multi-million dollar verdicts by separate juries in two asbestos injury cases in New York resulted in damages collectively totaling $28 million, to be paid by boilermaker Burnham.boiler1

According to Legal Newline, one case resulted in the estate of one man receiving a $6.25 million victory in mid-June, while a second case awarded a man suffering from mesothelioma $22 million.

In both cases, plaintiffs allege they were exposed to deadly asbestos fibers after coming in contact with boilers made by Burnham.  Continue reading

A brake arcing machine manufacturer can be held accountable for toxic asbestos exposure to a mechanic, even though its product did not actually contain asbestos. sparks1

These machines were used to grind asbestos-laden brake linings in auto mechanic shops throughout the country for decades.

Defendant in the California case of Rondon v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. argued that not only did its products not contain asbestos, but its machines were not designed to be used exclusively with products that contained asbestos. There was in fact ample evidence its machines were used on non-asbestos brake pads. It was based on this the trial court dismissed. But plaintiff appealed, and now the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, has reversed, finding this “exclusive use” standard the defendant used should not have been used. The proper test was the “inevitable use” test, in which it is determined the machines would inevitably be used in a way that exposed workers to asbestos dust without adequate warning or protection.

According to court records, plaintiff developed mesothelioma after years of working as a mechanic and being exposed to asbestos dust while grinding brake linings. He alleged it was the brake arcing machines that actually released the dust into the air as he worked from 1965 to 1988. He alleged the manufacturer of these machines was liable under theories of both negligence and strict liability because, he argued, these machines had no other function than to grind these asbestos-filled brake linings.  Continue reading