Mesothelioma Lawsuit recent

Asbestos-related diseases, including all forms of mesothelioma injury, have been reported in industry since about as century ago. In 1906, Dr. H. Montague Murray (Charing Cross Hospital, London) testified before a governmental commission inquiry about occupational disability that he had seen a man in 1898 who was very short of breath and who had worked in an asbestos factory. The man's lungs at autopsy were badly scarred. That was maybe the first legal action taken on behalf of the mesothelioma victims.

The case of the woman who died in 1924 from severe lung scarring after having spent 20 years in a textile factory weaving asbestos and the case of the 17 workers who had filed compensation claims for their asbestos disease in 1951 against this employer are also well known.

Recent cases pointed in more sensitive issues, because we can talk about apportionment of the blame in Mesothelioma cases. There are some Mesothelioma lawsuits taken as an example.

In the Fairchild versus Glenhaven Funeral Services case , 2002, the claimants suffered mesothelioma injuries and the defendants sought to argue that as this cancer is an indivisible condition (the one fibre theory), the claimant should not recover compensation from their employers because they could not establish which employer was responsible for the crucial fiber. The court held that if the employers had exposed the mesothelioma victims to asbestos fibres, which materially increased the claimants' risks of developing the condition, then they were liable to compensate the claimants. The court said that the injustice that arose from the imposition of liability on an employer in such circumstances was greatly outweighed by the injustice of denying redress to the victim.

In Barker versus Saint Gobain Pipelines Plc, Court of Appeal case, 2004, the defendants did not dispute asbestos exposure during the deceased mesothelioma victim's employment with them. They argued that as the exposure also occurred during a period of self-employment, that the claimant could not bring the cause of the deceased's mesothelioma within the principles of Fairchild, and that there should be no finding of liability against them. Failing which, that the Court should apportion the liability of the defendants to reflect the fact the deceased was also exposed to asbestos dust elsewhere which might have caused the mesothelioma.

This cases and other like that need specialized law firms to work on behalf of the mesothelioma patient, because it can make the Mesothelioma lawsuit easier to proceed and finish, hopefully with a good result.