Wisconsin Mesothelioma Lawyer and Legal Information
Many asbestos lawsuits filed in Wisconsin are filed on behalf of plaintiffs who were exposed to asbestos in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and are now suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease. There have been a number of pro-plaintiff decisions by the Wisconsin courts, many of them affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Those decisions go beyond jury verdicts and settlements because they set precedents that make it easier for other victims of asbestos-related illnesses to recover rightful compensation in the future.
Determination of Liability
Wisconsin courts follow a modified comparative negligence - 51 percent system in determining whether to award damages. Under the modifications to comparative negligence used by the Wisconsin courts, a plaintiff may recover damages if they are judged up to 50 percent at fault in causing their own injuries. If the judge or jury determines that the plaintiff is 51 percent or more at fault in his or her own injuries, there is no award for compensation. In another sense, if the plaintiff is determined to be 1 percent to 50 percent liable, the amount of damages are reduced in proportion
to the plaintiff's liability. Thus, if a plaintiff is judged to be 10 percent responsible in a case where the jury has determined that damages amount to $100,000, the plaintiff may recover up to $90,000 in damages.
In cases that concern multiple defendants, the Wisconsin courts follow a modified joint and several liability approach in apportioning the damages between the defendants. A defendant that is judged to be less than 51 percent negligent in causing the injury is only subject to several liability and will only be responsible to pay damages proportionate to its percentage of the fault. Any defendant judged to be more than 51 percent negligent in causing the injury to the plaintiff is subject to joint and several liability, making them possibly responsible for the entire amount of the judgment.
Wisconsin Asbestos Litigation2002 - Anderson v. Combustion Engineering, Inc: The suit was originally brought by the estate of a machinist who had passed away with mesothelioma after working with asbestos-containing materials for many years. The trial court found defendant Combustion Engineering to be 29 percent responsible for the plaintiff's injuries.
Combustion Engineering appealed on the basis that there was not enough supporting testimony to connect the asbestos in the boilers to the plaintiff's lung cancer. The appeals court ruled that it is acceptable for juries to draw reasonable inferences from testimony even in cases where the jury's inferences would require proof by more specialized testimony. In addition, the court of appeals rejected the defendant's claim that the plaintiff is obligated to present some sort of journal of daily activities to prove ongoing exposure to asbestos.
State IndexAlabama (AL)
Alaska (AK)
Arizona (AZ)
Arkansas (AR)
California (CA)
Colorado (CO)
Connecticut (CT)
Delaware (DE)
Washington D.C. (DC)
Florida (FL)
Georgia (GA)
Hawaii (HI)
Idaho (ID)
Illinois (IL)
Indiana (IN)
Iowa (IA)
Kansas (KS)
Kentucky (KY)
Louisiana (LA)
Maine (ME)
Maryland (MD)
Massachusetts (MA)
Michigan (MI)
Minnesota (MN)
Mississippi (MS)
Missouri (MO)
Montana (MT)
Nebraska (NE)
Nevada (NV)
New Hampshire (NH)
New Jersey (NJ)
New Mexico (NM)
New York (NY)
North Carolina (NC)
North Dakota (ND)
Ohio (OH)
Oklahoma (OK)
Oregon (OR)
Pennsylvania (PA)
Rhode Island (RI)
South Carolina (SC)
South Dakota (SD)
Tennessee (TN)
Texas (TX)
Utah (UT)
Vermont (VT)
Virginia (VA)
Washington (WA)
West Virginia (WV)
Wisconsin (WI)
Wyoming (WY)
Many asbestos lawsuits filed in Wisconsin are filed on behalf of plaintiffs who were exposed to asbestos in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and are now suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease. There have been a number of pro-plaintiff decisions by the Wisconsin courts, many of them affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Those decisions go beyond jury verdicts and settlements because they set precedents that make it easier for other victims of asbestos-related illnesses to recover rightful compensation in the future.
Determination of Liability
Wisconsin courts follow a modified comparative negligence - 51 percent system in determining whether to award damages. Under the modifications to comparative negligence used by the Wisconsin courts, a plaintiff may recover damages if they are judged up to 50 percent at fault in causing their own injuries. If the judge or jury determines that the plaintiff is 51 percent or more at fault in his or her own injuries, there is no award for compensation. In another sense, if the plaintiff is determined to be 1 percent to 50 percent liable, the amount of damages are reduced in proportion
to the plaintiff's liability. Thus, if a plaintiff is judged to be 10 percent responsible in a case where the jury has determined that damages amount to $100,000, the plaintiff may recover up to $90,000 in damages.
In cases that concern multiple defendants, the Wisconsin courts follow a modified joint and several liability approach in apportioning the damages between the defendants. A defendant that is judged to be less than 51 percent negligent in causing the injury is only subject to several liability and will only be responsible to pay damages proportionate to its percentage of the fault. Any defendant judged to be more than 51 percent negligent in causing the injury to the plaintiff is subject to joint and several liability, making them possibly responsible for the entire amount of the judgment.
Wisconsin Asbestos Litigation2002 - Anderson v. Combustion Engineering, Inc: The suit was originally brought by the estate of a machinist who had passed away with mesothelioma after working with asbestos-containing materials for many years. The trial court found defendant Combustion Engineering to be 29 percent responsible for the plaintiff's injuries.
Combustion Engineering appealed on the basis that there was not enough supporting testimony to connect the asbestos in the boilers to the plaintiff's lung cancer. The appeals court ruled that it is acceptable for juries to draw reasonable inferences from testimony even in cases where the jury's inferences would require proof by more specialized testimony. In addition, the court of appeals rejected the defendant's claim that the plaintiff is obligated to present some sort of journal of daily activities to prove ongoing exposure to asbestos.
State IndexAlabama (AL)
Alaska (AK)
Arizona (AZ)
Arkansas (AR)
California (CA)
Colorado (CO)
Connecticut (CT)
Delaware (DE)
Washington D.C. (DC)
Florida (FL)
Georgia (GA)
Hawaii (HI)
Idaho (ID)
Illinois (IL)
Indiana (IN)
Iowa (IA)
Kansas (KS)
Kentucky (KY)
Louisiana (LA)
Maine (ME)
Maryland (MD)
Massachusetts (MA)
Michigan (MI)
Minnesota (MN)
Mississippi (MS)
Missouri (MO)
Montana (MT)
Nebraska (NE)
Nevada (NV)
New Hampshire (NH)
New Jersey (NJ)
New Mexico (NM)
New York (NY)
North Carolina (NC)
North Dakota (ND)
Ohio (OH)
Oklahoma (OK)
Oregon (OR)
Pennsylvania (PA)
Rhode Island (RI)
South Carolina (SC)
South Dakota (SD)
Tennessee (TN)
Texas (TX)
Utah (UT)
Vermont (VT)
Virginia (VA)
Washington (WA)
West Virginia (WV)
Wisconsin (WI)
Wyoming (WY)
Source: http://www.asbestos.com/states/wisconsin/mesothelioma-lawyer.php
0 comments:
Post a Comment