Common Types of Toxic Tort Cases and How Defense Attorneys Respond

In toxic tort cases, individuals claim that they have been harmed, from exposure to a harmful substance. Such litigation often involves intricate scientific and medical evidence, which can complicate the cases for plaintiffs and defense counsel. Defense counsel’s responsibilities include assessing whether their client can be liable, challenging causation, and protecting their clients, often large corporations or manufacturers, from large economic losses and reputational damages. 

Occupational Exposure Cases

One of the leading causes of toxic tort claims is occupational exposure. Companies whose employees work in industries such as construction, manufacturing, and agriculture have employees, workers may have been exposed to toxic substances such as asbestos, benzene, silica dust, and industrial solvents over long periods. Connective claims for these types of toxic tort cases, as outlined in plaintiffs' allegations, typically include long-term occupational exposure, which subsequently resulted in severe health conditions such as cancer asbestos, or respiratory conditions.

Pharmaceutical and Medical Product Claims

Another major category of toxic tort litigation involves pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Nearly all complaints typically create a claim that the drug or device was responsible for severe side effects or long-term harm. Defense attorneys concentrate their focus on scientific evidence that shows the drug or device underwent proper testing and FDA approval before going to market. There may also be defenses related to the sufficiency of warning labels or the argument that the plaintiff did not use the drug or device as directed. The photographs may also show the plaintiff's complete medical history to reveal any possible pre-existing conditions that caused the symptoms that the plaintiff presented. 

Toxic tort defense attorneys in Lake Charles, Louisiana, want to see that plaintiffs provide any evidence of significant exposure to a specific product or that before the plaintiff's action, their client is responsible for the contamination. Concerning contamination, they may also argue that the plaintiff had an obligation to mitigate or clean the contamination, which would significantly reduce the causal link. As with all toxic tort cases, the defense lawyers can be crucial actors in the process, and the effective use of scientific and other evidentiary resources, compliance with regulations, and expert witnesses more fully framed their position to lessen liability for their client.