District of Columbia Mesothelioma Lawyer and Legal Information

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, has been the venue for a number of groundbreaking mesothelioma cases, largely because it is home to the United States Supreme Court. There have been asbestos cases decided in the Washington D.C. district court as well, though they are not as well-publicized. The District of Columbia decides awards based on pure contributory negligence and common law joint and several liability.

Environmental and Occupational Safety Regulations

The District of Columbia enacted legislation in 1998 requiring certification and registration for contractors and professionals who deal in asbestos abatement. Violations are taken very seriously, and will lead to fines, penalties and possibly even jail time or probation. Environmental asbestos concerns are handled by the District Department of the Environment. DDOE penalties for violation of air quality standards can be as high as $10,000 a day per violation for failure to comply with administrative directions.

In one of the most infamous incidents of the past decade, 10 men who work in the tunnels underneath the Capitol building revealed that they were told back in 1998 about extremely high levels of asbestos in the tunnels in which they work. Though the government knew about the conditions back in 1998, the men were not actually provided with necessary safety equipment until 2006, and they are still waiting for the promised asbestos abatement and removal actions.

Nine of the 10 workers already show compromised lung function that is characteristic of asbestosis and other related asbestos damage. In addition, all of the men express concerns about having carried asbestos fibers home to their families. A Washington D.C. mesothelioma lawyer is currently preparing a lawsuit on their behalf which could promise to be one of the most influential asbestos lawsuits in D.C. history.

Determination of Liability

Washington D.C. courts decide liability based on pure contributory negligence. Under a pure contributory negligence system, a plaintiff may only recover compensation for damages if they are judged to be completely blameless in the causation of their injury. If a judge or jury decides that the plaintiff did anything at all, no matter how small, to contribute to their own injury or illness, they are barred from collecting any compensation.

In cases with more than one defendant, the courts in the District of Columbia apportion any judgment according to a common law joint and several liability standard. Under joint and several liability, each defendant is jointly and severally responsible for the entire amount of any judgment ordered, regardless of how much their fault contributed to the injury. This can be very good news for plaintiffs, since it means that they will recover the full amount of the judgment ordered, even if some of the defendants aren't able to pay their share of the judgment.

Asbestos-Related Litigation

A number of significant asbestos cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

Norfolk & Western v. Ayers: Among the most recent of these was a 2003 ruling by the Supreme Court in a West Virginia case (Norfolk & Western v. Ayers) that six railroad workers suffering from asbestosis were allowed to recover 'pain and suffering' damages due to the mental anguish created by the fear of developing cancer or mesothelioma by their current diagnoses. In the same case, the Supreme Court decided that Norfolk & Western could be held responsible for the entire amount of the judgment even though the negligence of other employers and parties not named in the suit may have jointly contributed to the disability.

Amchem v. Windsor: The landmark 1997 Supreme Court decision upheld a lower court's decision overturning a nationwide class action settlement that would have established a commission to pay past and future asbestos-related claims against 20 different defendants. That settlement would have denied the right of future claimants to bring suit against any of the named defendants. The Supreme Court held that the 'class' formed was not a legitimate class as it was too divergent, and the settlement was contrary to the interests of many of those represented.

State Index