Legal responsibility for injuries caused by asbestos exposure.
Full Question:
Answer:
In civil court lawsuits for damages, legal responsibility for injuries caused by asbestos exposure is mostly determined under the law of product liability. A product liability case arises when manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are claimed as responsible for the injuries caused by those products. Products liability law consists of common and/or statutory law provisions that allow damages to be obtained against sellers or manufacturers of defective products that cause injuries. Products liability lawsuits typically involve claims of mismanufacture, misrepresentation, defective design, or a failure to warn or instruct the consumer regarding safe use of the product. Product liability cases are usually based on one of three theories: (1) breach of warranty; (2) negligence; or (3) strict liability.
- (1) Breach of Warranty: A warranty can be express or implied. Implied warranties provide that a product will be fit and safe for its intended purpose. Liability for a breach of express warranty exists if the supplier or seller of a product containing asbestos made a claim about the product that ultimately caused someone to buy or use the product, and that claim later turned out to be false.
- (2) Negligence: In order to make a defendant liable for negligence, the plaintiff shall prove four elements: “(1) the defendant had a legal duty to provide a safe product; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused an injury; and, (4) the injury resulted in damages to the plaintiff.” This is a relatively difficult standard to prove and hence courts have developed an alternative theory of strict liability.
- (3) Strict Liability: Like negligence, the strict product liability theory requires the plaintiff to prove four elements: (1) a strict duty to supply a safe product; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation; and, (4) damages. However, strict liability differs from negligence in two key ways. First, under a strict liability theory, the existence of a duty is shown when there is a commercial supplier that manufactures or retails the product - not just a casual seller. Second, under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff does not need to show that the breach of duty is the result of any negligent action. The mere fact that the product was dangerous or defective is enough to establish a breach of the supplier's duty. The element of causation can often be the most difficult to prove. Usually, scientific reports and studies are presented by the defense to dispute that asbestos did not cause the injury alleged. Further, as there is a substantial amount of time between exposure to asbestos and the appearance of an injury, the defendants may use that passage of time to argue the injury was caused by exposure to another toxic substance, or a product manufactured by someone else. Therefore, in order to prove causation, the plaintiff must show that the asbestos-containing product can cause the injury claimed, that the plaintiff was exposed to the asbestos in a quantity large enough to cause the injury claimed, and that the plaintiff was not exposed to some other toxic substance or product that could have caused the injury.