In a nutshell, asbestos litigation comes down to (1) product identification, (2) causation and (3) liability. It is generally agreed that asbestos causes mesothelioma, but the defendants in asbestos litigation rarely admit that their asbestos caused the mesothelioma. Instead, the defendants attempt to identify alternative sources of asbestos that they can argue were the real causative exposure.
In a recent case, Charlie Stern says his client’s mesothelioma was caused by routine and repeated exposures to industrial talc. Despite the clear evidence of these exposures, the defendant attempted to shift blame to the client’s work in a phosphate mine. However, the defendant had no evidence to substantiate such claims and was entirely based on speculation.
The suggestion of alternative causation can be challenging to overcome, especially if unsubstantiated, before a jury. To protect against this tactic, mesothelioma clients must be prepared for what otherwise would seem to be harmless questioning by defense counsel. Additionally, Beasley Allen lawyers file necessary motions in limine to eliminate the threat of misleading and speculative arguments attempting to create exposures of which there is no legitimate evidence.
Eliminating this common defense tactic is necessary to protect your client’s case and furthers the truth-finding mission. At Beasley Allen, our mesothelioma lawyers are prepared and skilled in staving off this attempt by the defendants. With this advocacy, we put our clients in a position to ensure that their cases are as strong as possible. If you need more information on asbestos litigation, contact Charlie Stern.
The post Firm’s Meso Lawyer Warns of Defendants’ Tactics to Dodge Accountability appeared first on Beasley Allen.