Law Office of Scott A. Nelson, P.C.

Many cases in Texas have discussed the litigation of mesothelioma and asbestos-related physical injuries. For any actions filed after June 3, 2003, the successor asbestos-related liabilities for a corporation are limited to the fair market value (FMV) of the total gross assets of the transferor at the time of the consolidation or merger. The corporation has no responsibility for successor asbestos-related liabilities above this limitation. This is a very important law, as mesothelioma claims (please check our "Mesothelioma FAQ" section for more information) and their defense are very expensive.

The Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code ("CPRC") defines an asbestos claim as follows:

"Asbestos claim" means any claim, wherever or whenever made, for losses, damages, contribution, indemnity, or other relief arising out of, based on, or in any way related to asbestos, including:

(1) property damage caused by the installation, presence, or removal of asbestos;

(2) the health effects of exposure to asbestos, including and claim for death or personal injury, mental or emotional injury, risk of disease or other injury, or the costs of medical monitoring or surveillance; and

(3) any claim made by or on behalf of any person exposed to asbestos, or a representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of the person.

A "successor" is a corporation which incurs or assumes, or has incurred or assumed, successor asbestos-related liabilities. A "transferor" is a corporation from which successor asbestos-related liabilities are or were incurred or assumed.

For purposes of the CPRC, a corporation can establish the FMV of total gross assets through any method reasonable under the circumstances, including by reference to the going concern value of the assets or to the purchase price attributable to or paid for the assets in a fair (arm’s length) transaction. If there is no readily available information through which the FMV may be determined, reference to the value of the assets recorded on a balance sheet is acceptable.

Our firm represents mesothelioma clients in Corpus Christi, Houston, Galveston, Brownsville, Laredo, and throughout Texas. Contact Galveston mesothelioma lawyer Scott Nelson if you need help with a mesothelioma claim.

Expert evidence is required for product liability (defective products) actions involving toxic products. Plaintiffs must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. As such, liability will not be found in products liability cases when scientifically reliable evidence is not available. The offering party must show the reliability of the expert evidence. Epidemiological evidence is often used in toxic tort cases. Epidemiological studies examine existing populations in an attempt to determine whether there is an association between a particular condition or disease and a factor which is suspected of causing that condition or disease. When a plaintiff uses epidemiological studies to prove specific causation, the plaintiff must show that he is "similar to the individuals in the study. A court must determine whether the epidemiological is reliable before a plaintiff or defendant may use the evidence to support the expert’s opinion. The expert has to identify the particul

Generally speaking, "products liability" (or defective products) refers to the liability of a manufacturer, seller, or other person or individual responsible for placing a product in the stream of commerce for property damage or personal injuries that the product caused. Although manufacturers of products that harm or injure consumers are liable for injuries, they are not insurers of the safe use of a product.

A manufacturer’s duty to provide an appropriate warning is virtually absolute for products which contain dangerous or toxic ingredients which are not obvious to the typical user. Further, the failure to provide a warning constitutes negligence. Moreover, it may even be negligence in failing to label as toxic a product with a known toxicity. In deciding whether there is a duty to warn, a supplier or manufacturer must consider the common knowledge held by foreseeable users, as well as whether the warning would reach users.

If a product’s manufacturer knows that when there is a severe reaction to the product, the person will die without an antidote, and the need for the antidote would not be known to an ordinary purchaser, a label is inadequate if it only states that if an allergic reaction sets in, the product should be discontinued.

Under the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, a product manufacturer or seller is not liable if:

(1) the product itself is inherently unsafe and it is common knowledge in the community that the product is unsafe; and

(2) the product is a common consumer product intended for personal consumption, such as alcohol, sugar, castor oil, butter and tobacco.

There are several kinds of products liability actions. These include manufacturing defect, design defect and marketing defect (such as the failure to warn of a toxic product). To prove that a product is defective, it must be shown that the product was unreasonably dangerous in construction, in design, or because inadequate instructions or warnings were provided.

Our firm represents products liability clients in Corpus Christi, Galveston, Brownsville, Laredo, and all of Texas. Contact Corpus Christi defective product attorney Scott Nelson if you need help with a defective product lawsuit.

Survival actions are often brought along with wrongful death actions. A personal injury action does not abate, or end, because of the death of the injured party or the person causing the injury. When the injured party dies, the action survives and is then brought in favor of the deceased’s heirs, estate and legal representative. Just as with any other claim, a plaintiff bringing a survival action on behalf of a decedent must have both legal capacity to sue and standing. An heir has capacity to bring a survival action when the decedent’s personal representative either will not or cannot bring the suit, or when the representative’s interests are different or antagonistic to that of the estate. There is not a survival action for the death of a fetus. A child must be born alive for there to be a survival action. However, parents have various remedies under the Wrongful Death Act for the death of a fetus. Additionally, damages relating to the mother’s mental anguis

A decedent’s minor child may recover an money damages representing the amount the decedent would reasonably have contributed to the child’s maintenance and "the value of the services which the (deceased parent) in reasonable probability would have rendered them in training, advising and educating them." Similarly, the adult children of a decedent may receive damages for the loss of expected contribution from a parent. There is no need to show evidence of exact amounts of money received or expected to be received form the decedent.