Vinyl Chloride Lawsuits
|
Find
Attorneys: Free Consultation Vinyl Chloride Lawsuits |
Legal Claims and Causes of Action In cases where a person incurs an injury
as a result of exposure to vinyl chloride or a vinyl chloride
product, the causes of action available to the injured person
depend upon how the exposure occurred. People injured as the
result of the use of a product that contains vinyl chloride may
pursue a products liability claim. Lawyers have successfully
demonstrated the link between Occupational Exposure and serious
diseases. In many cases workers have received hundreds of thousands
of dollars in damages against negligent companies. Products Liability Under a theory of products liability, a person who uses a product containing vinyl chloride, such may make a claim if the product's use results in adverse health effects. The claim would likely allege that the product manufacturer designed a defective product or failed to warn of the dangers of vinyl chloride. Under a claim of defective design, the plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff used the vinyl chloride product in the manner the manufacturer intended the consumer to use the product, that the manufacturer defectively designed the product, and that the defect caused the plaintiff's injury. To establish that the manufacturer defectively designed the product, the plaintiff can show that the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care when designing the product. In the case of a vinyl chloride product, the fact that scientific evidence exists suggesting a link between vinyl chloride and various forms of cancer, circulatory, reproductive, and respiratory system problems, and other health problems, may provide sufficient support for a claim that the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care when choosing to use vinyl chloride. A failure to warn claim would require that the plaintiff show that the manufacturer did not take sufficient steps to inform the consumer of the potential hazards of prolonged exposure to vinyl chloride. The plaintiff could establish such a claim by offering evidence that the vinyl chloride product contained no warning, that the warnings were not sufficiently highlighted and set apart from other product literature, that the warnings did not provide sufficient information to allow the consumer to make an informed choice, that the warnings were on a separate insert easily separated from the product and lost, or that the wording of the warning made it unclear to the consumer. In a products liability claim the plaintiff can recover damages for actual losses, including medical bills, lost wages or earnings, as well as for pain and suffering. In particularly egregious cases or in cases where the defendant-manufacturer's actions were grossly negligent, a court may also award punitive damages. Environmental Exposure In cases where a plaintiff incurs an injury either to person or property, as the result of environmental contamination, the plaintiff may maintain claims under theories of negligence, public nuisance, and trespass, as well as under CERCLA. Under a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty of care to prevent the plaintiff's injury, that the defendant failed to meet that duty, that the failure to meet that duty caused the plaintiff harm, and that the harm resulted in a compensable injury to the plaintiff. In the case of environmental vinyl chloride contamination, a plaintiff would need to establish that the contaminator, most likely a local industry that uses vinyl chloride for one reason or another, had a duty to prevent ground water leakage or soil contamination as a result of their vinyl chloride usage. The fact that the defendant failed to prevent such contamination could constitute a failure to meet its duty, particularly if local, state or federal laws or regulations forbid such contamination. The hurdle for a plaintiff in this case is establishing that the plaintiff's vinyl chloride exposure resulted from the defendant's vinyl chloride contamination. This may require experts to establish that ground water flows or other geological factors indicate that the defendant's contamination could have resulted in exposure off-site, in an area where the plaintiff may have risked exposure, such as at their home, in a local park, or elsewhere. The claims of nuisance, trespass and claims under CERCLA require substantially similar evidence. For these claims a plaintiff much show that contamination occurred on the plaintiff's property, and that the property was damaged as a result. Under trespass and nuisance, the plaintiff can obtain an injunction, which would force the defendant to stop contaminating the plaintiff's property. In addition, under these claims that plaintiff could receive compensation for loss in property value or for the cost of any environmental Re mediation necessary to clean up and repair the damage the vinyl chloride caused. Similarly, a claim under CERCLA entitles a party to compensation for the cost of Re mediation; however, CERCLA includes complex reporting and public disclosure rules that a plaintiff must be aware of in order to obtain a judgment from a court. Employee Claims With the increasing workplace exposure of employees to toxic chemicals and other hazardous materials such as vinyl chloride, the frequency of occupational diseases suffered by employees, in contrast to traumatic industrial accidents, has increased. Because these diseases develop gradually, it is often not until long after a disease has been contracted that the employee first realizes what has transpired, when the symptoms of the disease finally manifest themselves. As a result, knowledge of a hazard is a critical fact in preventing the disease. Although, in general, states' workers' compensation laws preclude an employee from filing suit against an insured employer to recover for injuries incurred at work, many courts have provided exceptions for cases in which the employer concealed hazardous working from the employee. In a number of cases, courts have ruled that an employer's concealment of a latent workplace hazard constitutes an intentional tort for which an employee has a cause of action. One court found liability in a case in which the employer allegedly failed to take steps to eliminate noxious chemical vapors, failed to alert employees to the danger of exposure, and failed to report condition to administrative agencies to which, by law, condition should have been reported. While exposure to a concealed hazard may not result in an occupational disease, concealment may result in aggravation of the disease because information necessary for effective medical treatment was withheld. In order to eliminate obstacles to suit created by workers' compensation laws, a plaintiff must establish that the employer either concealed the hazard or the extent to which the hazardous material might adversely affect employees' health. Conclusion Vinyl chloride may represent a serious public health risk, particularly for those who continue to use vinyl chloride products, those who live in areas with vinyl chloride contamination, and those who work in industries that use vinyl chloride. The law limits the time in which a plaintiff may have to make a claim in these cases. If you have sustained injuries you believe result from vinyl chloride exposure, consult a qualified attorney immediately. |