What Happened?

According to the lawsuit, Honeywell allegedly designed a defective mechanical tapping tee which caused the explosion that led to the utility worker’s death. The tee, known as Permalock, connects the natural gas line to the home. The plaintiffs are alleging that the tee was defectively designed and did not include sufficient warnings or instructions for those tasked with installing them. The lawsuit contends that the tap leaked explosive levels of gas that resulted in the smell of gas that initiated the call to the gas company.

The lawsuit, initiated by the worker’s widow, is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages for his death. The companies that installed the tap are also named as defendants.

Honeywell Targeted in Class Action

Honeywell is no stranger to lawsuits. 500 Illinois litigants joined a class action against the company for contamination, property damage, and medical problems arising from a Honeywell plant in Metropolis, Illinois. According to residents, Honeywell representatives were knocking on doors at 1 o’clock in the morning to instruct them to turn off their air conditioning and HVAC. Also according to residents, the plant would emit plumes of smoke that could burn your lungs if it was inhaled. There is some question as to whether or not this contamination led to multiple forms of cancer.

Honeywell Forced to Pay $10 Million in Jersey City

In another environmental tort lawsuit, Honeywell was nicked for $10 million as property owners successfully argued that Honeywell was responsible for contaminating their land with chromium.

Toxic Tort and Product Liability

The lawsuit that alleges that Honeywell’s tap was defective is vastly different than those that allege that Honeywell unleashed environmental toxins on local communities. The latter lawsuit forces plaintiffs to prove that there is a connection between the company’s waste disposal and some injury.

This injury does not necessarily have to be to a person’s body. It can also be to a person’s property. Even in cases where no physical injury results from Honeywell’s disposal methods, the mere presence of contamination on the property can severely devalue that property.

If plaintiffs can show a connection between Honeywell’s emissions and a higher-than-average presence of cancer in the area, the class action can balloon into nine figures. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Attorney

The Miami legal team at Alan Goldfarb P.A. has recovered millions of dollars for our clients while trying cases across a wide variety of torts. This includes both product liability and environmental or toxic tort. If you’ve been injured by a company’s negligence, you can recover damages. Give us a call or contact us online for more information.

Resource:

wfmz.com/news/berks/lawsuit-filed-against-honeywell-in-fatal-natural-gas-home-explosion/845805973

Beate Ritz, who is a public health and safety professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, is a key expert witness for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are more than 700 farmers who claim that the weed killer caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They are claiming that constant inhalation and skin absorption of the product resulted in their cancer.

The debate concerning glyphosate has been ongoing for the past 30 years. The difficult task for the plaintiffs will be linking their condition to the popular herbicide.

Expert Testimony is the Key to the Case

While much of the science behind glyphosate may difficult to understand, key witnesses advocating on behalf of the plaintiffs or defendants can have a profound impact on a case like this. The key for the judge will be to separate the facts from the sensationalism.

There are two key factors that could damage Monsanto’s defense a great deal: first, the question of whether or not they should have warned farmers about the side effects of glyphosate, and second, the question of whether or not they manipulated data to debunk studies not in their favor could prove to be damning. Companies are allowed to produce carcinogens, but they must warn those who are using their product of the potential dangers.

The World Health Organization pushed a report in 2015 that said that glyphosate was a “likely carcinogen” and linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma. In the U.S., concerns were raised as well, but there was no definitive determination as to whether or not glyphosate caused cancer. Last year, the EPA published a report to counter the WHO findings stating that glyphosate was “unlikely to cause cancer in humans”.

While Monsanto’s legal team accuses the plaintiff’s of “junk science”, the plaintiffs have accused Monsanto of manipulating data and quashing attempts to study the impact of glyphosate. Emails exchanged between Monsanto executives indicate that they knew about the data showing that glyphosate was potentially cancerous, and chose to run a PR campaign against the studies that showed otherwise.

Emails indicating that Monsanto ghost wrote scientific studies attributed to academics and used connections at the EPA to prevent studies by the U.S. Department of Health could be enough evidence for a jury to rule in the plaintiff’s favor.

Product liability cases like these can often come down to whose expert witnesses are more believable. But Monsanto’s own manipulation here is also a key factor that could sway jurors against the defense.

While the question of whether or not glyphosate causes cancer is still a matter of scientific debate, it’s for the jurors to decide if Monsanto is guilty of negligence.

Contact an Attorney for Help

If you have sustained injuries, you may be entitled to damages. Don’t hesitate to reach out to Alan Goldfarb, P.A. in Miami and we’ll fight for your right to be compensated for your injuries.

Resources:

insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/03/14/483247.htm

nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html

As it turns out, their children were suffering from brain cancer. But it took years for them to understand the extent of what was happening. One mother, Jennifer Dunsford, began to recognize a pattern. The children of the Acreage, Florida had a far higher rate of developing brain tumors than seemed natural. She decided to put together a database to track the dozens of cases that were happening in her neighborhood.

Linking the Cancer to Environmental Toxins

The Acreage in Florida is not your typical suburb. Many of the families that live there were drawn to the area because it had not been developed. The majority of properties themselves are over an acre in size, and the area relies on private wells and other privately run and owned businesses for basic services. The town is not incorporated.

In other words, the majority of those who lived in the area were drawn there by the love of the natural environment. Dunsford, alongside other area parents, began setting meetings for those who had been affected by the cancer outbreak. A local reporter ran a story on her efforts. Eventually, the state of Florida vowed to undertake a cancer-cluster investigation.

But linking the high rate of pediatric brain tumors to a single cause is not an easy task. The folks of the Acreage learned also that they were not alone. Residents of Port St. Lucie had also suffered an unexplained outbreak of brain tumors.

Investigations, however, failed to turn up conclusive evidence. There were higher levels of potential carcinogens in the private well water, but the news appeared generally good. A sharp divide formed in the community between those who wanted to believe the good news, and those who still thought there was an environmental cause.

Cancer Clusters and Toxic Tort

The difficulty in a case like this is establishing the connection between a single environmental toxin and the higher rate of cancer in a given area. It becomes, in most instances, one possibility among many. At best, environmental scientists and researchers are able to show a correlation. For a lawyer, establishing liability is extremely difficult, though not impossible.

For residents of the Acreage, there was one kind of contamination that had the potential to explain the higher rates of brain cancer. That was ionizing radiation. The source of the ionizing radiation could be traced to two companies that operated in the area. One of these companies was a mining operation that used a method of dredging to mine limestone for road construction. The other was Pratt & Whitney, one of the largest manufacturers of airplane engines in the world.

For personal injury lawyers, this represents an instance of what is called toxic tort. The challenge for attorneys is in connecting the higher incidences of brain cancer to the waste products of these companies. If successful, however, the lawsuits may result in some compensatory damages for the families that were destroyed by this tragedy.

Have You Been the Victim of Environmental Toxins?

If so, you deserve an attorney that will do everything in their power to bring the truth to light. Contact the office of Alan Goldfarb, P.A. today for immediate help with your case.

Resource:

thenation.com/article/brain-cancer-rate-girls-town-shot-550-defense-contractor-blame/

What is a “Toxic Tort”?

A “tort” is a civil wrong. The “civil” part means a dispute has arisen between private parties. The “wrong” means that as a result of one of the party’s conduct, the other party has been adversely affected in some way. This may mean a monetary loss, physical injury, or other measurable losses such as lost business. Toxic tort litigation arises when one party thinks the other should be held responsible for the wrong. For example, if Company A has a big factory upstream from Community B, and Company A starts dumping chemicals into the water that contaminate the drinking supply in Community B making the citizens ill, Community B may bring a toxic tort lawsuit against Company A.

In this scenario, what is Community B hoping to accomplish? In civil litigation, the objective is to make the injured party “whole.” However, loss can be very difficult to measure when it involves one’s life or health. Community B may not simply be looking to make sure its citizens are compensated for their health care costs that were inflicted by Company A’s wrongdoing, but in the bigger picture, may file suit to cause Company A to change their future behavior. The Court may award punitive, or “exemplary” damages to Community B—that is, the Court may make Company A pay large sums of money to make an example to show other companies that if they participate in similar practices, the consequences will be severe. This type of litigation occurs not just between companies and private parties, but also between companies themselves.

Miami, Florida Toxic Tort Litigation Attorneys

Toxic tort litigation is a niche area of the law that requires particular skill, knowledge, and experience. The injuries in toxic tort cases are often severe and the amount of money at stake can be substantial. Environmental concerns are among some of the greatest in the court system at this time, with new information always being discovered about the long-term effects of exposure to certain chemicals. With this in mind, if you or anyone you know has been exposed to a toxic chemical, mold, radon, asbestos, or other contaminant, it is critical to understand your legal rights. Companies and private citizens alike have an obligation to their community to meet certain environmental standards. Failure to do so may result in substantial consequences. At Alan Goldfarb, P.A., our experienced toxic tort litigation attorneys know how to navigate these complex claims in court and advocate on your behalf. Contact our Miami office to learn more about your legal rights today.