Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Also, you completely misunderstand the basic premise of some of these lawsuits - asbestos cases hinge on exposure, but the actual tort issues are mostly related to one or more of product defect, negligence in removal, or outright lying about the dangers. Exposure does not equal death, or even illness, in every case - for that reason, there may be NO DIFFERENCE in the eyes of the law between someone who is sick and someone who has been exposed with little or no (current) health issues. Basically, your example kind of sucks, too - I just can't really get on board with your point, because it may or may not even apply.
|
This may be a nice attempt at discrediting my argument by saying you know more about the law than I do (which I would hope you do since you are the lawyer in this conversation), but it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
I would love to get into a detailed discussion about the premise being exposure- but to do so would get into details that will let you know about one of the cases I worked on which was highly publicized.
But forget all that for a moment, and forget class action, forget fees and forget all the other smoke screens here. Let's try a hypothetical with the greatest degree of detail I am comfortable sharing (meaning the below is not a deviation from facts of a specific case, but is generalized.)
You are an attorney. You have 500 asbestos plaintiffs in front of you- all of which you have documented evidence that you solicited to file a claim.
5 of those people had extensive exposure over many years and are showing serious symptoms of being ill. 495 of them had minimal exposure, many of them 10+ years ago, and NONE of them show ANY signs of ill effects from their past exposure. By minimal exposure I mean that in some cases the plaintiff- while properly masked- encountered asbestos material the size of a coin for a few moments.
You group all of these cases into one action- be it class action or a compilation for administrative purposes- and you settle out of court for a certain amount.
Your 5 plaintiffs who had long term exposure and are showing symptoms- all working class men in rural towns with no knowledge of the legal system- get $30,000 each on average at the end.
Your other 495 plaintiffs get $15,000 each on average at the end.
Take into account that today a legitimate asbestos claim for someone with long term exposure and known medical impact is in the millions.
Also take into account that a single suit for someone with minimal exposure and no signs is a no-go.
Tell me as a member of the general public (and the general public is not all that stupid) that there is not a serious ethical issue here and please explain why.
Tell me how your advice to those 5 medically impacted clients to settle for $30,000 along with a cast of others was better for them than pursuing a solo case.
If you can explain why- and yes including detailed analysis of the basis of law for the suit in the context of the question, I will defer to you and say I am wrong.
And if I am wrong on this specific hypothetical, then my answer is there is a problem with the law- and that is another topic.