Seeking Justice: Holding Companies Accountable for Asbestos Exposure

Asbestos exposure has had devastating consequences on the health and lives of individuals worldwide. In seeking justice for those affected by asbestos-related diseases, it is crucial to hold responsible parties accountable.

Negligence is a commonly pursued legal theory when seeking accountability for asbestos exposure. Under negligence law, companies owe a duty of care to employees, contractors, and other individuals who may come into contact with asbestos-containing materials. To establish negligence, the following elements must be proven:

• Duty of Care: The defendant company had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to others.
• Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to meet the standard of care by exposing individuals to asbestos or failing to implement safety measures.
• Causation: The breach of duty directly caused or substantially contributed to the plaintiff's asbestos-related illness.
• Damages: The plaintiff suffered physical, emotional, or financial harm as a result of asbestos exposure.

Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (1973) set a precedent by holding manufacturers liable for the harmful effects of asbestos exposure.

Strict liability is another legal theory that can hold companies accountable for asbestos exposure. Unlike negligence, strict liability focuses on the dangerous nature of the product itself rather than the defendant's conduct. Under strict liability, the following elements must be established:

• Product Defect: The asbestos-containing product was unreasonably dangerous or defective.
• Causation: The defect in the product directly caused the plaintiff's asbestos-related illness.
• Damages: The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of exposure to the defective product.

Failure to warn is a theory of liability that focuses on a company's duty to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the dangers of asbestos exposure. To establish a failure to warn claim, the following elements must be demonstrated:

• Duty to Warn: The defendant had a duty to provide warnings or instructions regarding the hazards associated with asbestos exposure.
• Inadequate Warning: The provided warnings or instructions were insufficient or misleading.
• Causation: The failure to provide adequate warnings directly caused the plaintiff's asbestos-related illness.
• Damages: The plaintiff suffered harm due to the lack of proper warnings.

Holding companies accountable for their role in asbestos exposure requires a thorough understanding of legal strategies and precedents. By pursuing theories of liability such as negligence, strict liability, and failure to warn, victims and their families can seek justice for the harm they have endured. The Throneberry Law Group, a renowned nationwide mesothelioma and asbestos firm, is dedicated to assisting individuals in holding responsible companies accountable. With their expertise in asbestos litigation, the Throneberry Law Group provides comprehensive legal representation and support to those affected by asbestos-related diseases, ensuring that their rights are protected and that they have the best chance of obtaining fair compensation.

If you or a loved one is suffering from the effects of Asbestos exposure, contact the Throneberry Law Group for a confidential and comprehensive consultation. We want to help you.