In October, a man filed a lawsuit against his former employer claiming that the company’s negligence led to him suffering asbestos exposure. Due to his alleged exposure to asbestos, the man has had to deal with asbestos-induced diseases, loss of income, disability and increased medical expenses. The man’s lawsuit involves several companies he holds responsible for his condition, including former employers, product manufacturers, insurance companies and product distributers, such as:
• Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
• Electrolux Home Products Inc.
• Air and Liquid Systems Inc.
How Was This Worker Allegedly Exposed to Asbestos on the Job?
According to the complaint filed in this case, the man had been working as a boiler tender since 1973. Duties associated with his job included replacing asbestos fixtures and working near others handling asbestos as well. Working in this profession often forced him to inhale and ingest asbestos fibers. He alleges that the defendants in this lawsuit did not warn him of the dangers of working with asbestos. His complaint also says that the defendants did not properly test asbestos-containing products to assess their danger to workers. In addition, he claims his employers failed to instruct him about how to handle asbestos safely.
Knowingly allowing an employee to work with a dangerous substance, such as asbestos, without training the person to safely handle the product is extremely negligent. Employers and others who commit this act can and should be held accountable, both for the sake of their current victims and to prevent them from hurting others in the future.
The information provided by Walton Telken, LLC in this Blog is not intended to be legal advice, but merely provides general information related to common legal issues. This Blog, and the information contained within it, is Attorney Advertisement. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.