There is no fully established law system for asbestos-related case in Europe. The regulations are still under development, new laws appear to cover all possible kind of issues for the consequences of asbestos exposure into environment. In the USA the situation is much clearer, as over the last five centuries millions of claimants tried to protect their right for fair compensation for such injuries. In Europe each new series of cases cause new questions for the law: in what way to consider claims, how to define the amount of compensation, etc. Today asbestos litigation became a separate branch of legal argument that requires proper attention from the EU government.
To understand the differences between the US and EU compensation systems for asbestos-related issues, a few factors need to be considered. Let’s stop on each of them in details.
The first one is the group of diseases that can be a reason for filing a lawsuit. In the USA 10% of all lawsuits were initiated due to malignant diseases. And this is not the only type of diseases that will be compensated by the verdict of the court. In Europe asbestos exposure is still not considered as indemnifiable, as well as lung diseases. The compensation for such things is provided by insurance companies, and the lawsuits on this matter are not popular. There is a tendency of the growing number of lawsuits, but still Europe doesn’t have legal terms for the range of asbestos-related health conditions.
Another difference is the role of labor unions in asbestos litigation process. While in the USA trade unions initiated the lawsuits against companies responsible for the exposure, European labor unions often prefer not interfere with such issues. US employees were united by the same purpose – protecting their health and making employers to deploy all possible protection means to minimize the risk of asbestos exposure. If employers did not support such initiatives, trade unions passed workers’ claims into the court. In Europe only now labor unions begin to take part in this process. The character of this role is more informative, to let the society know that such problems exist. Here victims of asbestos exposure unite in their own groups seeking the support of labor unions and governments.
Due to the massive character of asbestos cases in the USA very often the court practices consolidating cases of the same type into one. This helps to save time and increases chances for satisfying the demands of plaintiffs. Very often a defendant prefers to resolve all issues by the settlement agreement and avoid serious and loud trials. In Europe consolidated asbestos litigation is not allowed by the law, and each case is considered individually.
While each state in the USA is able to produce its own law, there are some differences in regulating asbestos-related issues inside the country. This moves lawyers to search for jurisdictions that provide more favorable conditions for satisfying the demands of their clients. European countries do not have such promiscuity in law, so there is no way to get any advantages when moving from one court to another.
The most of US lawyers work with their clients who wish to file an asbestos lawsuit on a contingent fee basis. This means that the lawyer will get his percent from compensation, if win the case. European legislation doesn’t allow such payment system, except specific cases in the UK.
These are the main differences between the European and US systems of law for asbestos-related cases. European law stands behind US standards in this area, and only develops their terms and rules due to much smaller number of such cases. However, the legislation systems react adequately, and in the near future the situation in this branch of law will be much clearer.