A man and his wife have filed a lawsuit claiming that as many as 67 different companies may have contributed towards causing his development of mesothelioma through exposing him to toxic asbestos over his working lifetime. The man worked as an auto mechanic at one company, and also did construction work while employed by another company involved in building residences. The personal injury lawsuit also notes that he was, at times, a laborer or helper at a steel mill facility, and repaired and maintained equipment and trucks used by a timber company.
For many years, asbestos was commonly used in various locomotive parts because of its heat-resistant properties. Certain parts on trains, such as the brakes, generate so much heat during operation that asbestos was used through the 1980s to protect other parts. However, when asbestos-containing parts on these trains begin to wear down and deteriorate, the asbestos can be released into the air and is then breathed in by any of the workers nearby.
A man engaged in the renovation of three separate homes has been accused of improper removal and storage of asbestos containing material found in the residences. A lawsuit, filed in state court against him, seeks to impose penalties as steep as $25,000 a day for violations of a clean air law. Improper handling of asbestos in North Carolina and elsewhere has often resulted in serious personal injury or illness, with some contracting serious respiratory ailments or cancer as a consequence.
There are a number of protections that employees have when it comes to speaking out against unfair or unsafe practices on the job. In many cases, these workers have concerns regarding safety or illegal behavior by employers, and some employers choose to dismiss these concerns or, even worse, punish the person who spoke up against the situation.
People in North Carolina and nationwide were shocked to learn how two men worked together to dump over 60 million pounds of debris from demolitions on open farmland bordering on a river. The truly outrageous thing was that much of the debris contained asbestos, the toxic substance that can lead to various illnesses including many respiratory ailments and mesothelioma that can result in disability and death. The two men were put on trial for criminal offenses and could also be subject to lawsuits for premises liability by anyone damaged by the presence of the asbestos.
Tracing back the source of exposure to asbestos after a person develops a devastating lung disease or cancer can be difficult. Often times, victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses have been exposed to asbestos in a number of environments and job sites. However, when a company is already facing a number of claims related to making or selling dangerous products containing asbestos, it may be a little easier to track for people who worked there or used their products.
After watching her husband suffer through mesothelioma before passing away, a widow finally won her fight against the company responsible for his death. Despite the lengthy and difficult legal process she faced, the woman is urging other victims and their families to never give up in the fight against negligent companies when it comes to asbestos exposure.
A West coast worker who suffers from lung disease mesothelioma has won an important legal victory, which could have federal implications for employees in North Carolina and elsewhere. The ruling in the personal injury case, which was handed down by a California court, prevents the Lorillard Tobacco Company from delaying civil actions by attempting to transfer the case to federal court, according to media reports.
Buying property contaminated with asbestos can be an extremely dangerous and costly experience for residents of North Carolina and elsewhere. In one recent instance, property purchasers filed a lawsuit claiming that they were tricked and defrauded by the prior owners into buying property laced with the toxic substance, failing to disclose its known presence.
One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with an asbestos-related disease, such as mesothelioma, can be determining who is responsible for contact with the dangerous product. In many cases, it can be argued that an employer has been negligent for allowing workers to come in contact with asbestos without proper warnings. But what about the manufacturer of a product that is designed to come into contact with asbestos? Should that party be held liable as well?