Meso Article

Congratulations on coming to this web site as part of your investigation into the causes and effects of Mesothelioma, as well as legal action concerning this terrible disease.  Here you will find a number of helpful links to assist in your internet search.  Spend some time here; it will be worth your while because it will make you more comfortable due to  the expanded knowledge of the subject that you will gain here.  And, depending upon your purpose for doing this research, it could also be of financial benefit to you in terms of learning about legal action that has been taken and is currently underway regarding this illness.  This web site will help you learn about matters of both compensation for those injured by this disease and steps taken to mitigate similar conditions that still exist in the United States and all over the world.

First, a cautionary comment about the web site's, information, the law, legal advice, commentary, and related subjects.  It is important to understand when doing your  research that only licensed attorneys are legally allowed to provide legal advice.  Anyone who offers legal advice who is not an attorney is practicing law without a license.  That is illegal.  Consequently, what you will find in this web site is not advice but rather information, commentary, and opinion.   Any legal advice will be accompanied by the legal source that has provided it.  This is not to say, however, that the information here is not helpful to your investigation, regardless of what your motive might be, but rather that clarity is established at the outset regarding the content of this web site.

Secondly, please be advised that there has been underway in the United States, for a variety of reasons, controversy regarding the nature of tort law.  (Tort law is that category of law that deals with issues of damages that do not emanate from contractual obligations.  Rather the damages arise from what is often an unintended consequence that causes harm and therefore someone who erred in causing the damage or injury is liable.)  Torts cover problems and accidents whereby some entity is found responsible, often due to negligence.   This has, over time, become a topic of debate in terms of potential abuse of the system by allegedly unsavory attorneys in pursuit of wealth more than justice.

The controversy over tort cases is tied to the notion that often lawsuits are filed primarily for the financial benefit of the attorney more than the client.  That is to say, the attorney files a suit and makes a claim for damages not because a serious wrong has occurred but rather as a means to make money from a settlement.  The argument continues that attorneys have learned that they can file a claim, for example, against an insurance company for $10,000, threatening a court case and all the legal fees which accompany it.  The insurance company doesn't want that expense and instead offers $1000.  The attorney accepts and he and his client divide the settlement, with the attorney often walking away with more than the client.  All that was needed was the filing of a short brief to frighten the insurance company.  The profit is, therefore, easy and great given the minimal effort involved.

These are often referred to as "nuisance or frivolous suits" which abuse the justice system.  Moreover, they also cause insurance rates to be raised on everyone because their cost is passed back to the consumer.  It is why one hears often the common complaint about frivolous suits and the need for tort reform.  Many times this comes with efforts to put a financial cap on various types of claims.  Medical malpractice is a common area for such discussions because the settlements can be so large.  Others argue that tort reform is needed because juries are often ill equipped to determine the magnitude of a claim in real terms of actual damages.  It is argued that slick attorneys can manipulate the sentiments and emotions of the jurors more than their reasoning and prompt a vastly disproportionate settlement in terms of actual damages suffered.  It is often pointed out that some manufacturers have been forced into bankruptcy due to such settlements and even if able to survive they are not able to ever again obtain adequate insurance coverage due to their losses.

On the other side, it is argued that without serious tort efforts to obtain large and proportionate damages, individuals and companies would be less responsible.  If caps limiting settlements were in place then any such lawsuit could be factored in to simply the cost of doing business.  Industrialist would, therefore, take dangerous risks, confident that they would survive any settlement expense.  Businesses would be run irresponsibly because managers and owners would be confident that they could get away with causing harm without suffering severe consequences financially. 

Moreover, if caps were in place then attorneys would avoid such cases because the expense of the investigation and litigation may not equal the settlement outcome due to the caps.  Many cases require years of litigation and no income is generated for anyone until the case is settled.  Attorneys and legal firms will take on serious tort cases and invest the time and money involved only if it is worth their while.  They cannot be expected to do otherwise.  Class action suits, whereby an entire class of individuals who have been damaged, for example (by Mesothelioma or something else that was caused by unsafe conditions) are tedious, expensive, and take years.   It is argued consequently, that it is the specter of a tort lawsuit of a terrific magnitude that helps keep industrialists, manufacturers, and so on, socially responsible more than it is the enforcement of laws that require them to be responsible.  It important to understand that the threat of a lawsuit regarding one's liability, one's negligence, or whatever can promotes responsibility. 

So, when studying this topic at this web site, keep in mind this issue of why many argue that big cases that deliver massive settlements are at the core of maintaining justice for the benefit of all.  And at the same time, others argue that the opposite is the case; that it is simply legal larceny for attorneys and firms to fleece companies that meant no harm and are willing to pay a settlement but not at the expense of being put out of business altogether.

More will be added to this web site over time.  Check back regularly to enhance your learning and understanding of this topic.