Ohio Tort Reform Proposal Advances

State senators must now vote on a new proposed procedural hurdle for asbestos poisoning lawsuits after the State House of Representatives watered it down.

As originally drafted, Senate Bill 63 required plaintiffs who said a company exposed them to asbestos to specify early in the legal process the specific products, exposure sites, and witnesses behind the exposure. The opponents argued asbestos victims often don’t show signs of lung disease for decades, leaving them poorly positioned to know off-hand who might have put them around what asbestos-containing products.

The measure seemed doomed for failure in the House until a bipartisan compromise was reached, with the approval of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, that reduced the requirements.

Now, proponents insist the modified measure will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits in Ohio. Victim advocates counter that the measure would essentially bar requests for compensation. “Mesothelioma victims often do not possess every piece of specific information necessary to comply with the bill’s extremely specific requirements,” one lawyer said. “Often this evidence is in the sole possession of others, including defendants.”

Tort Reform and Legal Actions

The controversial McDonald’s hot coffee case of 1994 triggered a wave of tort reform across the country, and the tide still washes ashore in places like the Ohio statehouse. Usually, tort reform measures limit compensation or, in this case, create procedural hurdles for victims.

Many people are familiar with the facts of this case, or at least the facts that business groups and their political allies broadcast. A woman spilled coffee on herself in a drive-thru lane, sued McDonald’s, and obtained $2 million in punitive damages, prompting cries of “lawsuit lotto” and “jackpot justice.”

Here’s the rest of the story. At the time, McDonald’s employees served coffee at about two hundred degrees. That’s just short of boiling hot. It was also significantly hotter than other fast-food restaurant coffee temperatures.

Two key facts swayed the jury. McDonald’s had received over 700 hot coffee complaints, yet it did nothing about the problem. Furthermore, the 84-year-old victim, Stella Liebeck, sustained third-degree burns to her inner thighs.

The $2 million represented one day of coffee sales for the fast-food giant. Most people would agree that proportion is a reasonable amount of punitive damages. The Liebecks subsequently settled for a much lower sum. Ms. Liebeck’s daughter later said the family spent almost all the money on home health care for her mother.

The cost of severe burn treatment is nothing compared to the cost of cancer treatments. Traditional treatments may cost tens of thousands of dollars per month. Cutting-edge genetic engineering treatments may cost several million dollars per month.

An asbestos exposure lawyer advocates for victims in the statehouse as well as the courthouse to help ensure that the courthouse doors remain fully open and that victims obtain the compensation they need without relying on government or charitable handouts.

Obstacles to Settlements in Asbestos Poisoning Matters

Back in the day, asbestos defendants often folded faster than Superman on laundry day. Large settlements were available for the asking. The environment is much different now.

The aforementioned tort reform measures are one reason. In some states, these measures have created such huge roadblocks that no asbestos-exposure lawyer can overcome them. Victims in these states have limited legal options.

Some issues are self-inflicted because of some unscrupulous asbestos exposure lawyers. Attorneys in several states have exaggerated or fabricated statistics in order to pump up damage claims. Many of these lawyers faced civil and criminal charges for their misdeeds.

In first grade, if one child acted up, the whole class missed recess. Similarly, because of the acts of these unscrupulous lawyers, victims everywhere pay the price. Court cases are now much more complex and subject to time-consuming judicial scrutiny.

Additionally, for reasons that are not entirely clear, the plaintiff’s overall winning percentage in civil cases has tumbled since the 1990s. So, during settlement talks, defendants often negotiate from a position of strength. Only the most determined asbestos-exposure lawyer is able to obtain maximum compensation in this environment.

Rely on a Savvy Asbestos Exposure Lawyer

Mesothelioma victims need and deserve significant compensation. For a confidential consultation with an experienced nationwide mesothelioma lawyer, contact the Throneberry Law Group. The sooner you reach out to us, the sooner we start working for you.

---