The Fight Against Asbestos: Key Moments in Legal History

The legal history of asbestos is a testament to the tireless efforts of consumers, advocates, public health officials, and legal representatives to hold companies accountable and protect lives.

Asbestos, once hailed as a miracle material due to its fire-resistant properties, has now become synonymous with deadly illness and widespread suffering. The legal history behind this harmful toxin and the battle to hold manufacturers accountable has spanned more than a century, marked by landmark court cases, evolving legislation, and growing public awareness.

This article traces the critical legal milestones in the fight against asbestos use, focusing on the evolution of legal accountability, key court rulings, and the gradual execution of asbestos bans. These milestones, while significant, have historically been met with push back from industries relying on the substance. Yet, there is still hope for an asbestos-free tomorrow so long the agencies and advocates opposing use continue their efforts to protect public health.

From the first asbestos-related death in 1906 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent 2024 ban on chrysotile asbestos, these moments in history highlight the long and often arduous path toward minimizing health risks and ensuring justice for victims. This timeline of significant legal victories offers insight into how public pressure, scientific evidence, and legal precedents have intersected over the years to expose the dangers of asbestos, even in the face of setbacks.

1906: First Recognized Case of Asbestos-Related Death

The first known case of an asbestos-related death was documented in 1906, when Dr. Montague Murray reported the case of a 33-year-old man who had worked for 14 years in an asbestos textile factory and had died of fibrosis of the lungs. Dr. Murray found fibers in the man’s lungs, which he declared lead to the patient’s death. The patient had previously told the doctor he was the only survivor from ten others who had worked in his workshop, all passing with similar symptoms.

However, it wouldn’t be until 1924 when a British factory worker named Nellie Kershaw fell ill and died due to prolonged asbestos exposure that the first asbestos-related disease would officially be recognized in medical literature. Kershaw worked at a factory where she handled raw asbestos fibers, which were woven into cloth, a job that subjected her to constant exposure to the toxic particles and eventually led to a severe case of asbestosis.

Dr. W.E. Cooke performed a medical examination on Kershaw post-mortem, documenting her cause of death to be asbestosis. His report, titled “Fibrosis of the Lungs in Asbestos Workers,” detailed the severe damage evident in Kershaw’s lungs, describing them as scarred and inflamed from years of inhaling fibers. This declaration would lead to the first legal case against an asbestos employer, and the two cases together would pave the way for more research into the matter to follow.

1924: First Asbestos Lawsuit Filed

Following Kershaw’s untimely death at the age of 33, her family’s case against Turner Brothers Asbestos Company would mark the first recorded asbestos-related lawsuit. Kershaw’s family sought compensation from her employer after Dr. Cooke’s findings were released. However, even with this evidence, Turner Brothers denied any responsibility for the worker’s demise, claiming it had no legal obligation to protect its workforce against such hazards.

Unfortunately, the court ultimately sided with Kershaw’s employer, as asbestos-related diseases were not yet recognized in British workers’ compensation laws. The family’s argument could not be upheld. Yet, this case was recorded in the books as the first time heat was put on an employer for exposing an asbestos worker, and this opened the doors for future asbestos-related litigation. Many legal cases citing employer responsibility would soon follow.

1969: The Borel Case

One of the most significant asbestos cases in U.S. history was Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, a landmark 1969 lawsuit that changed the legal landscape for asbestos litigation. Clarence Borel, an industrial insulation worker, developed asbestosis after years of handling asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). Infuriated by what he saw as gross negligence, the man sued multiple manufacturers following this diagnosis, claiming they failed to warn their workers, including himself, of the known dangers exposure posed.

This time, in a groundbreaking ruling, the court sided with Borel, holding the manufacturers liable for his illness and marking the first time companies were brought to justice for exposing workers. The court cited that asbestos manufacturers have a duty to warn workers about its dangers, and failure to do so would lead to legal repercussions. This put the industry on notice, forcing them to take action to safeguard employees or else face the consequences.

The significance of the Borel case cannot be overstated. It opened the floodgates for thousands of subsequent lawsuits, as workers across the country sought compensation for their asbestos-related diagnoses. It also established the legal principle that manufacturers could be held liable for failing to protect workers even if the dangers of asbestos were not widely known at the time of exposure. This meant that companies could no longer claim ignorance to the dangers at the time that a plaintiff was employed nor use the Turner Brothers defense that they weren’t obligated to offer protections against asbestos at that time. Also, because asbestos-induced diseases can develop decades after initial exposure, the Borel case was key in ensuring protections for victims regardless of timelines, in general.

1973: U.S. Bans Asbestos in Spray Products

The first major U.S. regulation on asbestos came in 1973, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of asbestos in spray-on fireproofing and insulation materials. Builders had long favored asbestos for these purposes due to its ability to withstand high temperatures and offer effective fire resistance. In the mid-20th century, as building codes became more stringent regarding fire safety, the demand for spray-on asbestos products surged. These materials were easily applied and offered a cost-effective solution for achieving required safety standards in both commercial and residential buildings.

However, with the growing popularity of spray-on products came a surge of health issues in those who applied the material as well as those who lived and worked in buildings where it was present. This prompted the need for safer alternatives, and ultimately, an all-out spray-on ban.

The EPA’s move was made in direct response to mounting scientific evidence linking asbestos exposure to serious health risks, including asbestosis and lung cancer, and its decision was a significant victory for public health advocates and workers’ rights organizations alike. While the 1973 decision was narrow in scope, it represented an important step toward broader asbestos regulations and further drew awareness to the dangers of use. It also helped protect workers in the insulating and fireproofing industries as well as their families and others who were exposed. However, it would take a number of years before the EPA would push for a broader ban.

1989: Partial Asbestos Ban Issued

In 1989, the EPA against took steps to fight against asbestos use in industry by attempting to issue a ban on asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), marking one of the most significant regulatory actions to date. The ban aimed to phase out the use of asbestos in most products, citing its devastating impact on public health and classification as a known human carcinogen. The EPA’s decision was based on years of scientific research and was made to further spread awareness of the dangers of this toxic substance.

However, the ban faced immediate challenges. Industry groups pushed back, arguing that it would result in severe economic consequences. Thus, in 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately overturned most of the ban, ruling that the EPA had failed to demonstrate that the benefits of a full prohibition outweighed the costs. As a result of the court’s decision to side with industry interests, the 1989 efforts were significantly scaled back, and many asbestos-containing products remained legal.

Despite this setback, the 1989 partial ban was still important in that it was the first time that regulators attempted to phase out asbestos use entirely. The leap from prohibiting the use of just one asbestos-containing product to trying to wipe it out entirely was huge. It poignantly drew attention to the fact that asbestos is a deadly substance, and this should no longer be ignored. Rather, the toxin should no longer be incorporated into consumer products or infrastructure at all. It also sent a clear message that regulators were concerned enough about public safety to risk economic decline.

1999: Complete Asbestos Ban in the UK

While the U.S. struggled to fully ban asbestos, the United Kingdom took decisive action in 1999, implementing a complete ban on all forms of asbestos, including imports. The UK’s ban was a landmark moment in the global fight against asbestos use, as it was a decision that distinctly prioritized the health of its residents over industry interests – something the U.S. court of appeals had decided not to do. The ban covered not only the use of asbestos in construction and industrial products, but it also prohibited the importation of asbestos-containing materials – something else the U.S. has yet to do.

In addition to its all-out ban, the UK government launched public awareness campaigns to inform its citizens about the dangers of asbestos and the importance of safe removal practices. These efforts also included guidance for homeowners and businesses on how to manage existing asbestos in buildings, emphasizing the need for proper containment and disposal. Thus, not only did the country decide that asbestos could no longer be used, but it proactively acknowledged the fact that much of the damage had already been done, taking measures to warn citizens of this fact so risks could be minimized.

The decisive action taken by the UK set a precedent for other countries to follow suit, and Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland did soon after.

2024: U.S. EPA Bans Chrysotile Asbestos

Recently, in April 2024, after decades of legal battles and regulatory struggles, the EPA took another major step in the fight against asbestos by issuing a ban on chrysotile asbestos, the most commonly used form. Its attempt to ban the mineral has marked a critical moment in the battle against asbestos, as the agency has not only taken steps to eliminate one of the last remaining sources of exposure but one that has been exceptionally popular. Of course, this raised some eyebrows.

Chrysotile asbestos has been extensively used in construction materials, such as roofing sheets, floor tiles, and insulation products. In the automotive industry, it can be found in brake linings and clutches, and it has also been used in gaskets, seals, and coatings. This means that the EPA’s decision would have the greatest impact on the construction and automotive industry.

The ban was not without controversy. Industry groups have already signaled their intent to challenge the move, arguing again that a ban on chrysotile could have widespread economic repercussions while also claiming that alternative materials are not as effective.

As long as the decision receives judicial support, this will bring the U.S. one step closer to fully eliminating asbestos in industry as well as its devastating effects on future generations. The legacy of asbestos will certainly be around for a long time to come as it continues to linger in the walls and floorboards of older buildings as well as in aging vehicles and dated consumer products. There are some cleanup efforts underway, but for these to be fully effective, a large-scale effort will need to be undertaken to focus valuable time, energy, and resources towards eradicating the issue. Doing so is costly, so as long as asbestos remains nonfriable, many parties are opting to leave it be, betting on its ability to remain encapsulated.

As older structures experience wear and tear, fibers will continue to make their way into the air, continuing to pose a danger to public health. And as long as asbestos is still being used in other countries, U.S. citizens will be vulnerable to potentially dangerous imports. Thus, the battle against asbestos continues.

Looking Ahead

The battle to reveal the truth about asbestos and halt its spread and exposure has been a long one, filled with setbacks, formidable foes, and some important victories. But the conflict is ongoing.

From the first recognized asbestos-related death in 1906 to the 2024 EPA ban on chrysotile asbestos, each legal victory has been met with challenges, yet marks progress in the ongoing fight against this deadly substance.

Continued efforts to minimize exposure risks serve as a constant reminder that vigilance is necessary to prevent future tragedies. As long as asbestos remains in buildings, products, and the environment, the risks persist. Therefore, public awareness and continued legal action are essential to ensuring that asbestos-related illnesses become a thing of the past. Let us not forget the historical lessons (learned the hard way) as the fight to eradicate asbestos and protect future generations continues.

For those who have already been diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness or who have had a family member diagnosed, seeking compensation can help offset treatment costs. The experienced team of attorneys at AsbestosClaims.law stands ready to discuss available options with individuals and families impacted by asbestos.