Wednesday, June 5, 2013

What You Need to Know About Mesothelioma Settlement Cases?

You must undertake an exhausting and detailed investigation into the employment and health history records of every person included in the class action brief, in order to swing the jury’s decision in favor of the claimant. This goes without saying that both parties have to first assemble their case. Plaintiff attorneys must undertake an exhausting and detailed investigation into the employment and health history records of every person included in the class action brief, in order to swing the jury’s decision in favor of the claimant. The defendant, on the other hand, typically using this time to mention the lack of health and safety procedures and legal corporate requirements during the time of contact (mesothelioma can lie dormant in ones lungs for many years).

So what does all this constitute to? Well, a mesothelioma settlement can reach in to the six-figure category and some mesothelioma cases have seen life-changing settlements (how does $2.5 million sound to you?) It is important to have strong foundations of a valid case to even begin thinking about claiming a mesothelioma settlement. Furthermore, be sure to seek as much advice on mesothelioma and in particular, known symptoms. It is equally as important to have a firm grasp of the dangers of asbestos and its impact on the human body.

If you, a friend, relative or loved one has been affected by mesothelioma it can be a stressful time where by many emotions are thrown in to the mixer. The most important thing is to seek the best compensation attainable, to protect the effected parties and secure financial security for those closest to the sufferer. If seeking for a mesothelioma settlement, follow these simple steps to form the basis of your case, and expand on them as necessary:

* Always research the correct information about mesothelioma and asbestos related diseases.

* Before proceeding to claim a mesothelioma settlement, research background information on the employer. Record employee experiences, past health regulations, other mesothelioma cases etc. The more you have researched, the stronger the case.

* Seek advice from professional parties. Ask for quotes and consultations from reputable mesothelioma settlement laywers (chances are, you can find the best ones on the internet).

* Always keep a clear focus. Emotional control is absolutely vital to achieving the best possible outcome for the beneficiary(s).

Visit my website and learn if mesothelioma settlement [] payments are taxable or not , causes and symptoms of mesothelioma as well as a whole wealth of other information.

Read More:

How to do Mesothelioma Settlements?

It is almost impossible to predict how much money would be involved in the settlement of claims mesothelioma without knowing the specific details of the claim and the medical history of the plaintiff. But history has shown that the majority of cases never reach the courtroom. Cases usually end with a settlement.
The number of settlements that are often associated with the cost of medical expenses, lost wages, physical and mental stress and bills piling up moving forward with asbestos-related diseases. Of course, they are also related to the strength of the plaintiff’s case, which brings into play the diagnosis of diseases, health conditions claimant (or lover) and the perceived level of responsibility on the part of the defendant (s).
For example:
A Buchanan County (Missouri) Circuit Court judge approved the settlement in 2011 worth $ 10 million to Nancy Lopez, an employee of Jackson County courthouse, which was exposed to asbestos during a renovation project undertaken by the U.S. Engineering Company.
A Montana judge in 2011 agreed to settle $ 43 million in Libby, Montana. But because the settlement includes more than 1,300 miners and their families, individual settlements ranging from only $ 500 to $ 61,000.

The family of a New Jersey construction worker received a settlement of $ 2.1 million after he died of mesothelioma, but a Navy veteran receives settlement actually $ 461,000 after he developed an asbestos-related lung cancer.

A boilermaker in New York received a $ 3.7 million settlement after developing lung cancer from exposure to asbestos, while the building maintenance worker received a $ 2,000,000 settlement after developing mesothelioma.
Proper completion rate is usually considered private and complainants are often bound by a secret treaty, although from time to time the amount of the settlement to reach the public eye. The amount can range from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars.
According to the latest report Mealey’s Litigation, Mesothelioma average trial award was approximately $ 2.4 million. The average mesothelioma settlement is between $ 1 million and $ 1.4 million, and is usually paid from the defendant a few. Some are much higher, others are significantly lower. No two cases are alike.
Settlement Process
Resolution process did not start out as a settlement. Starting with a mesothelioma lawyer preparing to present the case to a judge and jury.
“We are ready to take on every one of our cases to court. A very small percentage, though, never get a verdict,” said Dan Kraft, Weitz & Luxenberg attorney who won a $ 22 million related to asbestos verdict against Goodyear in 2011.
If the accused had settled – or lost – the case in the past, might want to finish the new claim process quickly without going through the case again. However, the initial settling can not provide adequate compensation for costs or damages for asbestos exposure has been done for your life.
A defendant generally will first offer a much lower amount than what you can and will pay. You may benefit from holding out for another offer (which is better). This is one instance where an experienced mesothelioma lawyer can help you evaluate your options.
Even just before the trial began mesothelioma, defense lawyers can make another offer of settlement. If settlement is not reached before the trial, but another offer could come up during the trial completion. What’s more, if there is more than one defendant in this case – if you are sued several companies, common – some companies can pay off while others may choose to take their chances in court.
“Most settled before the (trial),” Kraft said. “Pressure trial allows us more negotiating power as the trial draws near, everyone is very aware of what might happen. Reason settling defendants are that they realize that they make asbestos products, and we’ve done everything possible to prove liability, the case against them. ”
One reason for the lawsuit was settled out of court when the defendant concerned can not win this case. Several reasons may encourage a defendant to complete:
The discovery of information that is likely to lead to a decision favorable to the plaintiff
An interesting supporting deposition plaintiff
Lack of time to complete the necessary research before the trial
Sudden unavailability of a key witness or expert is needed to win the case
Mounting legal fees
The process of settling your case will probably include the defendant insurance company. That should not concern you or affect you. This is another area of your lawyer will handle, but your attorney will obtain your consent prior to accept or reject any bids.
If you agree to settle your case with the defendant, you must drop your claim against the defendants. You also may have to agree to keep the terms of a private settlement. As part of the settlement, the defendants will not always admit responsibility. These details are part of the settlement process that your attorney will negotiate on your behalf.
Here are 10 other settlements in mesothelioma cases published:
A Pearl Harbor shipyard worker who developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos receives $ 9.8 million settlement.
A construction worker who died at 40 from his exposure to asbestos receives $ 9.1 million settlement.
A Navy veteran who developed mesothelioma received a settlement of $ 5.8 million.
A 72-year veteran of the Navy received a settlement of $ 4,000,000 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.
A retired boilermaker New York received a settlement of $ 3,797,083 after the formation of lung cancer from exposure to asbestos.
A building maintenance worker received a settlement of $ 2,000,000 after developing mesothelioma.
A Navy submarine worker who developed mesothelioma received a settlement of $ 1.7 million.
The widow of a Navy veteran who developed mesothelioma received a settlement of $ 1.3 million.
A New Jersey construction worker received a settlement of $ 2.1 million after the death of mesothelioma.
A Navy veteran received a settlement of $ 461,000 after developing an asbestos-related lung cancer.
Factors That Affect Settlement Amounts
Anyone considering a lawsuit filed related to asbestos must understand what affects any amount that must be resolved. Certain factors are more relevant than others as defendants decide whether the settlement is justified.
Cases that affect various aspects of the settlement amount of personal hardship to third party liabilities. If the evidence clearly shows that asbestos exposure negatively affects your life, in addition to having other documentation in order, you will have a better chance of a higher resolution.
Medical Expenses and Lost Wages
For most mesothelioma patients deal with the difficulties of cancer, they are also undergoing financial difficulties because of the cost of medical expenses such as doctor visits nursing, and Medicine Mountain. In addition, because patients should focus on treating their disease, they may not work, causing the loss of wages and other income.
Medical expenses and lost wages from asbestos exposure usually increase the total settlement. Depending on the financial hole that a patient with medical expenses and bills, settlement can be considered as the best option for them because trials can take a long time to conclude.
Company Negligence
During the 1900s, studies have shown a definitive relationship between exposure to asbestos and the development of diseases such as mesothelioma. The company produces products containing asbestos will eventually become aware of the dangers posed to consumers of their products and employees.
In cases where the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products are allowed intentionally to hurt people, potential financial liability may be very large. Settling the plaintiff may be the best way to minimize the cost due to some historical cases has secured awards in the tens of millions of dollars.
Number of Companies Being Sued
During the history of the patient, he may have been exposed to asbestos through more than one product. As a result, during litigation, claims are often filed against several companies that manufacture products containing asbestos. Most of the claims now involves between 20 and 30 different defendants. In terms of the settlement, all of the defendants will be required to participate in a payment to mesothelioma patients.
State of Case
Proving liability, negligence and mistakes on the part of the defendant may or may not be easy, depending on where the claim is made and how the exposure occurred. As a revolving litigation related to asbestos claims has filled in the court system, some states have actively changed the way this process works in their country.
Different amounts of evidence and proof will be required in different countries. If you are considering filing a lawsuit relating to asbestos, consider researching trends and needs in your country so that you understand what will be expected of you.
Case Matrix
The totality of the factors that determine the amount of the settlement has been well understood by the trust fund established by the companies that manufacture products containing asbestos. Factors have been calculated and weighed based on interests, forming a matrix equation such trust funds will be used to determine the settlement amount. Several factors including the patient’s age, specific diagnosis of cancer, the level of asbestos exposure, and past medical records.
Depending on the criteria of this case, there will be a number that should be assigned to the plaintiff’s completed. This means that the completion of a pre-determined based on qualifying factors. For example, a mesothelioma patient who smoked and worked as a boilermaker for 10 years to receive the amount that must be resolved while the mesothelioma patient who worked as a painter, who did not smoke or have health problems before, will receive another amount that must be resolved. Each factor of each situation will be rated and will be calculated accordingly.
At the end of the day, no amount of settlement going back health care for patients of mesothelioma. Legal action is only to compensate for the damage to the patient while punishing financial company or companies responsible.
Attorney Fees
Keep in mind that your attorney will receive a percentage of any award or settlement. The percentage may vary if you negotiate a settlement rather than winning in court. When determining the minimum acceptable amount of the settlement, be sure to explain your attorney will receive a percentage. This percentage will be determined at the beginning of your case, and your attorney usually will not take the money until the case is complete and you have received compensation.
You may receive your compensation in installments rather than in one lump sum, especially if the settlement is very large. Exactly how do you want your payment is something you should discuss with your attorney during the checkout process.
What to Do Next?
If you or someone you know is a mesothelioma patient who is considering taking legal action, make sure that you take the necessary steps to position your case for the best chance of success. Contact the appropriate legal professionals, have proper documentation and take all appropriate action. It can make the difference of you received a modest settlement or historic.

Opt for a Nationwide regarded Mesothelioma Law firm

Mesothelioma law firms are around for examine the potential settlement intended for mesothelioma situations. The event info associated with veteran mesothelioma law firms is frequently required to know the specific cancer-causing, asbestos that contain products which could possibly have revealed somebody to harmful inhalation associated with asbestos materials. They will work as helpful information for action their clients by way of a mesothelioma suit. Many mesothelioma law firms carry specialist satisfaction within controlling each mesothelioma instance along with consideration to fine detail, therefore delivering a good individualied client strategy.

Lots of people would rather pick a nationwide identified mesothelioma law firm to deal with the suit. The reason being the experience an attorney includes is often a huge affect the overall instance end result. Working with an praised legal organization is often a help to clientele exactly who make use of the skills. Additionally, these types of effective specialists hold a new long-standing track record of effective mesothelioma litigation. For anyone who thinks some might have come across asbestos, the first step will be getting the suitable lawyer.

Signs or symptoms or maybe symptoms of mesothelioma may not show up until eventually decades following coverage. Lack of breath, hacking and coughing, along with chest area aches due to fluid build-up within the lung area tend to be symptoms of pleural mesothelioma. Different signs and symptoms include things like fat loss, abdominal puffiness, along with ache due to fluid within the abdominal hole, blood vessels clots abnormalities, anemia, along with nausea. In the event the melanoma offers propagate at night preliminary recognized influenced parts of the body, it may well mean the ailment offers metastasized for some other parts of the body creating cancers, however this is an extremely past due stage characteristic of melanoma.

Mesothelioma law firms attempt to support mesothelioma lawyer sufferers receive ample settlement to protect the escalating healthcare expenses along with lost pay. Additionally it is genuine that a huge number of mesothelioma law firms stand for This can be the best option for many who want to use a new mesotheliom law firm. Lines are always open for patients who suffered the consequences of asbestos exposure.

Read More..

The Process of Mesothelioma Lawsuits

Whenever you have to face a mesothelioma disease that is caused by mineral called asbestos, it is suggested that you consider contacting a good mesothelioma lawyer as soon as possible. The cases of mesothelioma lawsuits are too fragile and only an expert that could help you to win it. Every state in United State has time limitation for filing the lawsuit. Therefore, you have to do it right after you have been diagnosed by the doctor. In most cases, the mesothelioma lawsuits are rarely going through the trial because the attorney and the lawyer will find the win-win settlement. The attorney is commonly guiding you in considering your legal choices. He will also find as many information as he can about the exposure that you have gained. Then, he will try to find the correlation between your sicknesses with the exposure so you will get the strong case.

The attorney perhaps will suggest you to file the mesothelioma lawsuits in several courts. In the beginning, you have to concern about the diction and the procedure of the court since you need to file a neat and formal complaint as the start of the lawsuit. This is the job of the attorney to help you writing and editing it, since he has all the files and the information you need. The written documents are also required to complete your claim. We have to wait for the defendant’s responses before we make the settlement. The defendant usually denies the case and tries to prove that they do not do something wrong with the asbestos. In the final stage of the mesothelioma lawsuits, we will get some offerings from the lawyer to end the case. It is commonly occurred with sum of money. Whenever you think that their offering meets with your need and your medical costs, you have the option to close the case with making a settlement with the defendant.

Read More..

How to Conduct Legal Mesothelioma Claim

Importance of Legal Mesothelioma
Living in modern city indeed offers many advantages. Yet, you need to know as well that sometimes you may suffer from health problems without any warning. Let’s take an example from severe disease such as Mesothelioma. It is very deadly for any people indeed. The main cause is the inhaling of asbestos. If you consider that there is certain party who is responsible in causing you getting Mesothelioma, you can conduct legal mesothelioma indeed to claim for recovery cost.
Choosing Quality Legal Mesothelioma Attorney
  • First thing to inspect when you need to hire attorney for your Mesothelioma case is to make sure that such professional offers you with home service. It means that you can choose certain attorney who will come to your house discussing about the case you have. It is for the sake of simplicity indeed.
  • Second thing you need to consider in getting quality legal mesothelioma attorney is in how they determine certain responsible party who cause the exposure of asbestos which make you suffer from Mesothelioma. Make sure that you choose certain attorney which may sue not only one company but 20 or more.
  • Third, you need to know about the quality of certain attorney in how they conduct research and legal process of your legal Mesothelioma case. Good quality attorney of Mesothelioma case may conduct thorough inspection about company location causing trouble to you and determine certain amount of money such company needs to settle.
  • Next point to pay attention if you want to hire legal mesothelioma attorney is to know that they can properly deal with any administration especially to face jury trial and also in how to mediate you and the company to gain agreement of settlement.
  • Next consideration, you really need to inspect about the experience of certain attorney service. If it is possible, always choose certain attorney having years of experience in providing legal Mesothelioma claims. Better experience can represent their success rate in winning the case indeed. If it is necessary, you can conduct comparison first online.
  • Next, don’t forget to inspect about reputation. It is very important to hire reputable legal mesothelioma attorney. Especially if you want to hire online, it can become very risky in choosing poor quality legal attorney for your Mesothelioma claim case. Reading about clients’ testimonial is a must to find reputable service indeed.
  • Another thing to inspect is in how you pay such attorney. There are two methods people usually do actually. First is by paying certain amount of money and second is by splitting the settlement won in the case indeed.
Read More..

Mesothelioma Types, Signs as well as Settlement Claims

Of many injuries and function connected illnesses,asbestos attorney just might be this takes in very much awareness. Almost daily a claim can be noted or possibly a compensation claim is registered. Mesothelioma is usually a most cancers which is generally attributable to previous contact with asbestos, roughly with 80 % of cases. Men and women generally doing work in companies in which asbestos fibers was used extensively, like building work, plumbing, ship lawns, previous homes and at strength areas, have been more prone to have been exposed to inhaling and exhaling asbestos fibrous resources generally during a period of years and hence are more inclined to endure both asbestosis or even mesothelioma amongst others.

In england alone practically 2300 individuals per year are usually clinically determined to have mesothelioma lawyers. A minimum of Three,400 folks Britain perish annually through mesothelioma relevant lung cancer and also mesothelioma resulting from earlier contact asbestos fiber fibres. Pleural Mesothelioma is a lot more popular as compared to peritoneal asbestos attorney. Exposure to asbestos is the responsible for mesothelioma. Mesothelioma material tend to be microscopic once swallowed or breathed in usually stay in body. After some time many people endure alterations you need to detrimental our bodies. Hence mesothelioma isn’t going to seem out of the blue but normally takes a few years prior to the signs start off turning into noticeable. Mesothelioma is normally mistaken for asbestosis. Asbestosis is also a disease in the respiratory system that may be caused by once more the presence of deadly asbestos material but it’s certainly not cancerous and thus are treated more effectively when diagnosed in an initial phase.

Mesothelioma signs are difficult to identify because they are really comparable to pneumonia. It is vital for any medical doctor to question a person in the event that he’s got a medical history of coming in contact with asbestos fiber relevant supplies. Early medical diagnosis can certainly extend daily life along with boost the probabilities of emergency. The existence of mesothelioma is continually growing and is also anticipated to boost in your next Fifteen years. Once the medical diagnosis can be look at the medical doctor may plan to start cure. The primary treatment employed in asbestosis is actually much needed oxygen therapy although surgical procedures, radiotherapy and also chemotherapy will also be utilized to enhance the expected life on the patient. The particular success coming from mesothelioma will be enhancing yet is still a lot of appealing in addition to ranges through division of medical diagnosis. If you’ve been victimized by asbestos exposure, seek legal and medical help immediately.

Read More..

Doing well Mesothelioma Settlement Having an Asbestosis Lawyer

Good results regarding mesothelioma affected individuals and also people using getting the legitimate and rightful right so that you can mesothelioma fork out is frequently a long approach asking for various specifics being taken into account while identifying true lead to together with responsibility as a result of asbestos being exposed along with the being who have contracted connected with an asbestosis condition. There may be, often, many exploration which must be accomplished by an incredibly professional along with specific asbestosis lawyer whenever a previous decision is get to long term mesothelioma declare situation, it truly is on account of multiple attraction plus a previous pondering being overturned.

Asbestosis lawyers make an effort to get monetary accidental injuries promptly was required to provide you with the customer, spouse or maybe shut household while using immediate in addition to essential service in a essential interval. Financial redress occasionally includes the price tag on regularly large medical doctor bills — most likely including specific products and in addition proper care, make an expedition expenditures regarding medical treatments, expenses definitely not built into health insurance, social gathering or simply friends and relations supprt, along with different types of expenses and in addition funeral service assistance bills. Within the style situations this validated check-up is made if the mesothelioma presents gained a new semi-pro stage there might wind up being below Twelve months eventually left to reside. The actual legitimate approach will likely have to be constant by using a partner together with portion of family utilizing his / her asbestosis lawyer. The actual just about any length of time that will moves which can be between Fifteen to be able to Quite some years over the preliminary coverage regularly in business clinics together with factories and also in community locations industry properties including universities and also nursing facilities — plus the commencing regarding asbestosis signs and symptoms might commonly interest a tremendous dilemma inside searching preliminary corporations, and/or this insurance suppliers.

Insurance companies previously cut-throat his / her culpability inside dilemma associated with asbestos mindset and in addition whether or not the chance on the litigant slowly being infected with mesothelioma may very well be moderately predicted through the boss during the time of the initial direct exposure, possibly at the precise amount which often can possibly drive the worker in hitting the ground with a prospective health chance. For that reason, a new defense may very well be properly secured in the approximated realistic steps previously being generally carried out to keep away from estimated destruction. Even so, many experts have authorized often that will hardly any facts, eye protection as well as other shield equipment/clothing are actually accessible to people functioning all-around asbestos inside the peak employ ages inside the Forties for the Twenty 70s and also Nineteen-eighties. I had a patient who was exposed to asbestos, he used to work as an engineer.


Asbestos and Mesothelioma Lawsuits

If you’;ve been exposed to asbestos and been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you may ask, “If I file a lawsuit can I count on to recover considerable funds damages?” The answer is normally “yes.” Folks who learn they are struggling with mesothelioma on account of functioning with asbestos (or, if they’;re deceased, their spouse) have a fantastic opportunity of attaining substantial dollars damages, either in the firm that manufactured or installed the asbestos, or from an insurance company or asbestos victims’; trust fund that has assumed liability for the company. And this is accurate even if the original manufacturer has extended since sold out, closed down, or even gone bankrupt, because of the formation of asbestos victims’; trust funds. (For additional data on employees’; rights in terms of asbestos exposure on the job, see Nolo’;s short article Asbestos inside the Workplace.)

How Lengthy Do I Need to Sue?
Mesothelioma tends to develop 10 to 40 years just after exposure to asbestos. State laws called statutes of limitations generally give persons one particular to 5 years (based around the state) in the diagnosis or discovery of mesothelioma to file a lawsuit. But it’;s important to act promptly, since in a couple of states, like California, Tennessee, and Louisiana, the statue of limitations is only one year from diagnosis. (Look at Nolo’;s chart Statutes of Limitations in All 50 States.)

If a mesothelioma victim has currently died, his or her spouse as well as other heirs ordinarily have 1 to 3 years from the date of death to file a wrongful death action, which also can outcome inside the recovery of substantial dollars damages.
Mesothelioma victims can not file or join in class actions lawsuits since every person’;s health-related history and prognosis is different, so mesothelioma instances should be filed individually.

How Long Does an Asbestos or Mesothelioma Case Take?
Most asbestos situations are settled just before they ever get to a jury (meaning the parties agree outside of court to the volume of funds damages the mesothelioma victim will get). If you have gathered all the details about your medical situation and employment history, and your lawyer runs an effective office, and there is certainly an conveniently identifiable payment source — for example an insurance business or an asbestos victims’; trust fund — you may get your money in significantly less than a year from the date your lawsuit is filed. But in other circumstances, where the amount of dollars damages is determined by going to trial (or at the very least threatening to do so), it might take 2 years or extra. Thankfully, the court guidelines in quite a few states recognize that mesothelioma victims have a brief life expectancy and because of this, quick track their lawsuits.

How much Can I Recover?
The dollar quantity you might be most likely to receive as compensation for developing mesothelioma is tough to estimate. Some instances outcome in settlements or jury awards inside the millions, when comparable ones settle for comparatively small. This is mainly because over the years, numerous corporations that manufactured or installed asbestos have closed down or gone bankrupt, which in turn has resulted in courts’; requiring that massive funds be set aside to compensate future victims. Some of these funds are nonetheless massive adequate to spend out all claims at full value, but other people have been depleted to the point that far much less is out there, so settlement amounts has to be rationed.
In addition towards the size of your asbestos victims’; compensation fund available for payment, every single victim’;s distinct mesothelioma illness and how it has affected their life is significant to arriving at a money settlement or jury verdict. The dollar amount of wages lost due to the illness, the cost of healthcare expenses, and, generally most significant, the degree from the victim’;s pain and suffering are all essential variables in putting a dollar value on a certain case.

A third element in estimating just how much funds damages you will recover is time. When situations are settled reasonably speedily, the amount recovered tends to be significantly significantly less than if your lawyer waits to present your case to a trial jury. But preparing and conducting a jury trial may perhaps take several years, whereas settlements can frequently be arranged within a year or less. For this reason, a lot of seriously ill plaintiffs prefer a fairly rapid settlement, and this really is in particular true when they study that some lawyers charge substantially additional when a case goes to trial.
All of this being stated, many mesothelioma cases outcome in settlement or awards inside the range of $1 million to $5 million or far more, but when attorneys’; charges, court costs, and health-related expenses are subtracted, victims frequently finish up with about 2-thirds of these amounts.

Can I Get Disability As a result of Mesothelioma?
The most widespread varieties of mesothelioma qualify for expedited disability rewards in the Social Security Administration. For far more info, see this article on having disability for mesothelioma.

How Do I Spend My Lawyer for mesothelioma sue  ?
All mesothelioma instances are handled on a contingency fee arrangement. This means your lawyer charges you no fees up front, but alternatively receives a percentage with the eventual settlement or income damages you receive as the result of a court judgment, plus any expenditures (for factors like depositions, copying, and postage) that you simply agree to spend as element of a written charge agreement. A typical contingency charge is 25% to 40% of dollars damages you recover. The exact amount is dependent upon many factors, such as whether or not a victims’; trust fund areas a cap on contingency fees (some enable no more than 25%), regardless of whether you settle out of court or go to trial, how much the lawyer desires your case (in the event the attorney believes your case is specific to win a huge settlement or court judgment, that you are inside a significantly much better bargaining position than if you’;re most likely to get a reduced quantity), and how challenging you bargain before signing a fee agreement.

How Do I Discover a Mesothelioma Lawyer?
Nolo gives a customized lawyer directory that consists of lawyers who specialize in individual injury and mesothelioma situations. Information about each and every lawyer’;s expertise, education, and costs, and (possibly most importantly) the lawyer’;s common philosophy of practicing law is obtainable. By utilizing Nolo’;s directory, it is possible to narrow down candidates ahead of calling them for any telephone or face-to-face interview.

Read more

Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos legal woes grinding on

Appeals, number of claimants keep Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos bankruptcy grinding through the court system

Late on the Friday that launched the Memorial Day holiday weekend, a judge approved a plan that will finally allow glass and insulation maker Pittsburgh Corning Corp. to emerge from a 13-year stint in bankruptcy.

But that development wasn't enough to stir celebration of a conclusion in the case involving hundreds of thousands of lawsuits alleging that insulation the Plum company produced decades ago contained asbestos that caused deadly cancers and other diseases.

"No doubt there will be objections and appeals," said Edwin Beachler, an attorney with Downtown law firm Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy who served as local counsel to a Texas law firm involved in the case.

The reorganization plan signed May 24 by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Judith Fitzgerald clears the way for creation of $3.5 billion trust that will assume Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos-related liabilities and pay out the claims. The two companies that own Pittsburgh Corning -- PPG Industries and Corning Inc. -- will contribute millions of dollars to the trust and eventually give up their stakes in the company.

Mr. Beachler and other attorneys say it's likely that insurance companies for Pittsburgh Corning will appeal before a U.S. District Court judge gives the plan final confirmation, meaning victims will wait even longer for payments expected to cover about 37 percent of their claims. Some victims have already died, lawyers said.

"Before it's all resolved ... it could ultimately extend into 2014," Mr. Beachler said.
Though it has taken more than a decade for the case to get this far, that's not unusual in asbestos-related bankruptcies, said James Restivo, an attorney with Reed Smith who is part of a team representing Pittsburgh Corning. He has worked on several other asbestos bankruptcies, including one involving Pittsburgh-based Harbison-Walker which is now part of ANH Refractories.

Asbestos is a fire-resistant mineral that was used in many building and industrial applications until the 1970s when it was phased out because of documented health hazards. Medical experts realized in the early 1900s that exposure to asbestos can cause respiratory diseases and cancer including mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that attacks the lungs and linings of the heart and abdomen.

The claims against Pittsburgh Corning involve pipe insulation called Unibestos that was manufactured from 1964 to 1972 at plants in Tyler, Texas, and Port Allegany, Pa., in McKean County. The Texas plant was shuttered in 1972 after the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration found it extremely hazardous.

More than 400,000 asbestos-related lawsuits named the company as a defendant. Pittsburgh Corning settled about 200,000 before it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2000, saying the remaining cases could exhaust its assets.

Like other asbestos-related bankruptcies, Pittsburgh Corning's was prolonged by the sheer number of victim claims being processed and a long list of objections, motions and appeals -- many of them from insurance companies ultimately responsible for paying the victims.

Of 40 insurance companies involved in the case, only two were still filing objections when lawyers filed into Judge Fitzgerald's courtroom May 23 to ask for final revisions to the reorganization plan.

"Appeals, unfortunately, have been standard in these cases, which further holds things up," Mr. Restivo said.
As Barry Bressler, an attorney with Schander Harrison Segal & Lewis' Philadelphia office, put it, "In setting up the trust, the insurers want to put in as little as they can, the debtor generally wants to put in as little as it can, and the claimants are looking for as much as they can get. So you have competing interests."

Under the final plan proposed for Pittsburgh Corning, PPG would pay about $825 million to the trust through 2023 along with 1.4 million shares of PPG stock or the cash equivalent. Corning would pay $290 million for the next six years. Their insurers would kick in $1.7 billion.

More than 60 such trusts have been created to resolve asbestos lawsuits, including those formed to handle claims in prominent bankruptcy cases such as Johns Manville and one set up for Harbison-Walker.

For Pittsburgh Corning -- probably better known for its glass block windows used in homes and commercial buildings -- an exit from bankruptcy isn't likely to have a dramatic effect on day-to-day operations.

Since joining the company as chief executive and chairman eight years ago, Phillip Martineau said he has managed it with a "focus on what we could control: how we treat customers, stakeholders and the people we work with and we try to continually improve that."

The company generates about $300 million in annual revenues and has 1,500 employees in North America, Europe and Asia.
Post-bankruptcy, the company will have a new board of directors and Mr. Martineau will continue as chairman. Currently the board includes representatives of PPG and Corning.

"We are very private and have been" since Corning and PPG founded Pittsburgh Corning as a 50-50- joint venture in 1937, Mr. Martineau said. "Part of our private nature is due to the legal restrictions we have in Chapter 11.

"We are highly profitable and growing. We are absolutely a success story that's underneath the radar in Pittsburgh." A number of local attorneys have helped steer the Pittsburgh Corning case through the court over the past 13 years.

Among the Pittsburgh-based firms involved are: Reed Smith, counsel for Pittsburgh Corning; K&L Gates which represents PPG; Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, which represents insurance companies; Campbell & Levine, which represents asbestos claimants; Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, which represents trade creditors; Clark Hill Thorp Reed, which represents Corning; Tucker Arensberg, representing insurance underwriters; and Dinsmore & Shohl, representing future claimants.

Read more:

Court Adopts Forecast by Dr. Thomas Vasquez of ARPC in the Estimation of Mesothelioma Claims

ARPC, a business advisory consulting firm offering economic, financial, statistical, and operational expertise to clients facing legal and business challenges, announced that Dr. Thomas Vasquez, ARPC Partner, provided expert testimony in the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings related to Bondex International, a subsidiary of Specialty Products Holdings.   

In the Bankruptcy hearings, testimony was provided by experts on behalf of the debtors, the existing mesothelioma plaintiffs, and the Future Claimants Representative regarding the estimated future liability for mesothelioma claims. Dr. Vasquez provided analysis and testimony on behalf of the Future Claimants Representative. On May 20, 2012, the opinion of Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the liability estimate provided by Dr. Vasquez of $1.1 billion, calling the methodology and resulting estimate he used “persuasive” and was the one adopted by the Court.

According to court documents, until 1977, Bondex International Ltd. produced a joint compound containing asbestos, which has been linked to mesothelioma and other respiratory ailments. The first mesothelioma lawsuits were filed against Bondex in 1980 (Case Nos. 08-4735; 09-3091), and the number of cases increased steadily over time until the company sought bankruptcy protection in 2010 in order to enable its’ parent company to set up a bankruptcy trust under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code to deal with the asbestos claims [1 ]. To determine the amount necessary to adequately fund the proposed bankruptcy trust required an estimate of the liability from current and future claims.

"In a complex bankruptcy case involving forecasting of future liabilities, the Court looks for the most credible and objective economic analysis and testimony in order to form its opinion”, said John Brophy, Partner at ARPC. “We consider the Court’s adoption of the methodology and conclusions of Dr. Vasquez to be the best outcome for our client and a validation of our analytical objectivity”, Brophy said.

The case is In re: Specialty Products Holding Corp., case No. 1: 10-bk-11780, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
1.    In re: Specialty Products Holding Corp., case No. 1: 10-bk-11780, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware:

About ARPC
ARPC is an economic and management consulting firm that provides statistical, econometric and financial analysis to clients facing complex legal and business challenges. For over 40 years, ARPC’s consultants have assisted law firms, corporations, governments and non-profit organizations in addressing their most serious economic and financial concerns in the courtroom, board room and marketplace. ARPC provides expert services in a wide variety of cases involving mass torts and product liability, antitrust, intellectual property, securities litigation, bankruptcy, and settlement administration. Our consulting depth includes a staff of highly skilled specialists with strong credentials in economics, finance, statistics, engineering, and epidemiological modeling. The Company headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. For more information, visit

Media Contact: Ran Farmer, ARPC. (w) 202 797 1111 R(dot)Farmer(at)arpc(dot)com
For the original version on PRWeb visit:

Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos Woes Continue as Company Tries to Emerge from Bankruptcy

Last week, a federal bankruptcy judge approved a plan that would allow asbestos-litigation embattled Pittsburgh Corning Inc. to emerge from bankruptcy, but experts say it’s likely that re-emergence will be further delayed, even after 13 years.

According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, attorneys believe that insurance companies for Pittsburgh Corning will appeal the plan, further delaying the formation of a $3.5 billion trust that will serve to compensate those harmed by the asbestos-containing products produced by the company in the past, including a widely-used pipe insulation known as Unibestos, produced from 1964 until 1972. Pittsburgh Corning’s two parent companies, Corning Inc. and PPG Industries, will each eventually contribute millions of dollars to the trust.

But none of this is unusual, says James Restivo, an attorney with Reed Smith who is part of a team representing Pittsburgh Corning in the bankruptcy proceedings. It often takes this long for a case to progress to this point, he notes, though it’s sad for those awaiting compensation for their injuries. He and others believe the case will extend into 2014.

So far, the company has been named in about 400,000 asbestos-related lawsuits. They settled about half of those before declaring bankruptcy in 2000, noting that any remaining cases could deplete their assets. Most of the claims pertain to the Unibestos product, which was manufactured at plants in Tyler, Texas, and Port Allegany, Pennsylvania. The Texas plant was closed by OSHA in 1972 after it was deemed to be “extremely hazardous.”

Bankruptcy really hasn’t affected Pittsburgh Corning’s day-to-day operations. The company, now best known for manufacturing glass block windows, still generates about $300 million in revenue each year and employs some 1,500 workers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Asbestos, which can cause mesothelioma cancer, is no longer a component in its products.


Financial Institutions e-briefing: Personal Injury Bulletin: Liability

Tacagni v Cornwall County Council and others (2013) 
In September 2007, the Claimant had been walking home with her partner after a night at the pub. The Claimant and her partner began walking along a B-road. They walked along the south-side of the road where there was a foot and cycle path. The path was raised approximately two metres above road level and was held by a retaining wall underneath. The wall projected approximately 30 centimetres above the path. In 2001 a landslide occurred, which had resulted in part of the retaining wall having collapsed.  It had been stabilised to a lower level and the area had been landscaped and fenced off.

The Claimant and her partner walked along the pathway until they decided that it was too dark and turned back. The Claimant’s partner left her to go and call a taxi.  The Claimant set off on her own, using the fence to guide her along the path. Following the line of the fence the Claimant left the path, crossing 4.8 metres of grass. Her shoes were causing her discomfort and she stopped to adjust them. She put her hand out to the fence, unaware that it had ended, and fell to the road below resulting in injuries to her head. The Claimant alleged a breach of duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.

The first instance judge was provided with a report compiled following an open spaces inspection that had been carried out in August 2007 by the Defendant’s inspector. The inspector had expressed concern regarding the safety of the wall further down the path and the risk that it posed to cyclists and children. He further observed that, in some places, there was no physical barrier between the wide grass verge and the road.

The judge held in favour of the Claimant, finding that there had been a very real, as opposed to remote, possibility that someone could have walked into danger on the path. He apportioned liability one third to the second defendant local authority and two thirds contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant.

The Defendant appealed on the basis that it had not been open to the judge, on the evidence that had been before him, to hold that the authority had been in breach of its duty of care. The appeal would be allowed. Although the judge had found that the path had presented a very real possibility of danger, no such accident had occurred as envisaged by the inspector and nor had the inspector envisaged an accident of the type in the instant case. The erection of the fence had been a proportionate reaction to the landslip. There had been no suggestion that further fencing had been required. Nor had it been necessary to consider the scenario whereby someone would have used the fence as a guide rail.

Hill and Billingham (Executors of the estates of Derek Billingham,  Deceased) v Lloyds British Inspection Services Ltd et el (2013)
Mr Billingham was diagnosed with mesothelioma at the end of 2007 and died in 2008. The Claimants claimed damages against three Defendants. Two claims were settled leaving only the claim against Lloyds. Lloyds employed Mr Billingham between 1968/9 and 1969/70. This included a three month period at Cottam Power Station in Nottinghamshire during its construction.
Mr Billingham alleged that he was required to test the strength of steel floors and girders. To do this he would throw a chain over the girder or beam and then put weights on it to see how much it could stand. In doing so dust would be dislodged from the top of the girders/beams and Mr Billingham would be showered in dust each time he threw the chain over.

Mr B alleged that asbestos lagging was used to insulate pipes, which broke down into a white dust whilst lagging was being undertaken, and also when lagging was removed for maintenance. This dust would shower down upon Mr Billingham when he threw the chains.
Lloyds argued that chains would not have been used to test the strength of beams and that the testing work had been done in the very early stages of constructing the power station before the installation and lagging of pipes. Lloyds also argued that in any event Mr Billingham had never worked near laggers and that asbestos levels, if any, were unlikely to have breached specified concentrations in the HM Factory’s Inspectorate’s Technical Date Note (TDN 13) which was issued a year after Mr Billingham’s time at the factory.

Lloyds referred to the Judgment in the case of Williams v University of Birmingham 2011 which stated that the Defendant in that case had been entitled to rely on recognised and established guidelines that were available in 1974. None of those highlighted a risk of asbestos-related injury at the level of exposure to asbestos fibres found. Therefore the Defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that the deceased would have been exposed to an unacceptable risk of asbestos-related injury.

The Court gave Judgment for the Claimant. Mr Billingham’s evidence (albeit hearsay) was accepted in relation to having to throw chains to test the strength of the girders. It was accepted that lagging was carried out on a rolling basis throughout the period of construction and that the substantial quantity of dust on the beams would probably have been contaminated with asbestos from lagging or otherwise.

In assessing the level of exposure to asbestos, the Court found it impossible to be precise about the fibre level to which Mr Billingham was exposed, but it was accepted that when this occurred he would have been exposed to a very high concentration and that this occurred many times each day. The Court found on the factual findings in respect of the level of exposure to asbestos that the case of Williams did not assist Lloyds as they had every reason to think that the levels to which Mr Billingham would be exposed would be in excess of the levels within TDN 13 and that workers would be exposed to a foreseeable risk of injury. Any reasonable employer in 1968/69 should have known that exposure to asbestos fibres in those quantities or anywhere near them posed a significant risk of injury and taken appropriate precautions to remove it or protect against it which Lloyd’s had not done.

Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller and another (2013)
In March 2007, during a training exercise on Dartmoor, Charlotte, then aged 14 years old, fell into a fast flowing stream and was swept away to her death. She had been on the moor with ten other children from the Second Defendant’s school. The First Defendant was at all material times employed as a teacher at the school and had been responsible for leading the exercise. During the exercise, the children were permitted to proceed on a route unsupervised, with teachers meeting them at various checkpoints. At checkpoint WT, the children were supposed to be met by a teacher. However, the teacher became lost on her way to WT and was not present when the children arrived.

The children phoned the First Defendant and they were instructed to continue. The children came to a stream and found that they could not cross. They phoned the First Defendant again and were instructed not to cross the stream but to walk around it. Another adult on the moor, W a scoutmaster, informed the children that they could cross the stream at a different location. The First Defendant spoke with W over the telephone and took W's advice that the group were getting cold and should continue to walk. The group initially attempted to cross Walla Brook but found that they could not. The First Defendant was telephoned by a student, CK, to inform him of this and an alternative route was advised by the First Defendant. When the group returned to checkpoint WT, W stated that he would accompany the group to a crossing point on Walla Brook. It was whilst crossing at that location that Charlotte fell into the stream, resulting in her death.
The Court found at first instance that the First Defendant had approached the exercise in a methodical and highly conscientious manner with evident attention to detail. The decision to allow the group to walk unaccompanied on the second day could not be said to have been negligent. It had been taken after careful consideration and after a strong performance by the group on the first day and the manner in which the group had completed the first two legs of the second morning in adverse conditions. Finally, the advice given by the First Defendant over the telephone to CK had not been negligent. The instruction not to attempt to cross the Walla Brook had been entirely appropriate. In any event, had there been a breach of the duty of care, the intervention of W had broken the chain of causation. The decision was appealed.

The Claimant submitted that the teacher had been personally negligent in failing to be present at WT, that the school was vicariously liable for that failure and that the teacher's negligence had caused or contributed to Charlotte's death. The Court found that in the circumstances, given the high standard reasonably to have been expected of the teacher, and the seriousness of the elementary errors made, there had to be a finding of negligence against the teacher. However, it was very speculative as to what course events would have taken had the teacher been present at the checkpoint. It could not have been concluded, on the evidence, that the teacher would probably have accompanied the children on the next leg of the route. It was not possible, on the evidence, to conclude that the teacher's presence at WT when the children had first arrived would have led to a different outcome or had been causative of the second attempt to cross the stream. Even if the teacher had stayed, the intervention of W, anxious to help and apparently authoritative, would have broken the chain of causation. It could not have been foreseen that the children would have disobeyed instructions from the First Defendant. Subsequent events could not have fairly been attributed to the absence of the teacher from WT. A finding that her presence there when the children had first arrived would have prevented the second attempt to cross the stream, with its tragic consequences, involved too much speculation to be tenable.

Germaine v Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (2013)
The Claimant suffered a serious back injury as a consequence of a lifting accident which occurred in the course of her employment with the Defendant.

The Claimant was a senior nursing sister at a hospital. In March 2008, on a Monday morning, she had arrived at work at 7am in order to prepare a clinic due to start at 8am. Due to the laying of a new floor covering over the weekend, contractors had removed all of the seating from the waiting area and had not returned it. The whole area was also covered in a film of thick dust. The seats, which were in sets of four fixed to metal frames, were heavy and awkward.

Having seen four hospital porters on a break outside the main entrance on her way into work, the Claimant contacted them, but was told that they were too busy and would not be able to provide any assistance until after lunch. She subsequently contacted the cleaners and the maintenance department, but nobody was able to assist. By approximately 7.30am, whilst the Claimant had been unable to obtain any assistance, eight patients had arrived for the clinic, some of whom were elderly and frail. The Claimant accordingly considered that she had no option but to drag the heavy wooden receptionist's desk out of the way and to lift the sets of chairs. She dragged the first set of chairs, but, having seen that they had marked the new floor, proceeded to carry a second set of chairs.

On lifting a third set of chairs, the Claimant felt an excruciating pain in her back and was unable to move for several seconds. She subsequently forced herself to stand as other nursing staff began to arrive and telephoned her line manager who was based at a different hospital, to tell her what happened.

The Defendant admitted primary liability, but claimed contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant had received training and instruction in health and safety, would be fully aware of the risks of moving heavy furniture and that the Claimant had failed to wait for assistance. The Court found that on the facts, there had been no fault at all on the part of the Claimant and the plea of contributory negligence would fail. Whilst it was accepted that the Claimant had received training in health and safety, that had related specifically to lifting patients during the course of nursing and had not extended to lifting furniture. With regard to the contention that the Claimant had failed to wait for assistance, assistance would not have arrived until after lunch. It had not been reasonably practical for the claimant, as an employee, to avoid moving the furniture, as assistance had been refused from all available sources.

Smith v Fordyce and another (2013) 
In March 2007, the Claimant and the First Defendant were travelling by car together. The Claimant was the passenger in the First Defendant's car. During the journey, the first defendant lost control of the car and crashed into a wall. The Claimant sustained injuries including brain damage. Immediately after the accident, the First Defendant gave a statement to the police in which he stated that he had slid on black ice and that that had caused him to lose control of the car. The police noted that the road surface had been covered in ice that was not initially visible and had taken no further action against the First Defendant.

In January 2010, the Claimant issued proceedings seeking damages for negligence. The First Defendant denied liability and stated that the accident had been caused by black ice on the road. In June 2010, the First Defendant had assisted in the preparation of a witness statement for the instant proceedings. That draft statement was consistent with the account given to the police and contained in the Defence. At the end of June, the First Defendant had met the Claimant by chance. Subsequently, the First Defendant had made a number of changes to the draft statement by which he changed his position and accepted responsibility for the accident. Consequently, the Second Defendant insurer was added to the proceedings.

At first instance, the judge found that the First Defendant's honest belief following the accident was that he had lost control due to the ice. The Judge did not believe the First Defendant's changed position and found that the cause of the change of position had been the chance meeting with the Claimant and that the First Defendant had acted out of sympathy for the Claimant in the belief that it was right to help him to gain compensation from the Second Defendant. The judge found that the accident had been caused by the car skidding on black ice and that no blame could properly be placed on the First Defendant for his loss of control of the vehicle. The Claimant appealed.

The issues to be determined on appeal were whether the judge had erred in finding that the immediate cause of the loss of control had been black ice and that no proper criticism could have been attached to the First Defendant in the circumstances. The appeal would be dismissed.
On the facts, the Judge had not only been entitled to reach the conclusion that the First Defendant had lost control of the car through skidding on ice, but the factual evidence had pointed strongly in that direction. The judge had been satisfied that the First Defendant had not been travelling at an excessive speed, that he had had no reason to anticipate icy road conditions and that he had skidded on a patch of black ice which had not been visible and could not reasonably have been foreseen. In the circumstances, the judge had been right to conclude that those facts were sufficient to rebut the inference that the accident had been the First Defendant's fault.

Cockbill v Riley (2013)
In July 2006, the Claimant, then aged 16 years, attended a party at the defendant's home. They are both teachers by profession. The Defendant had bought food for a barbeque and a limited amount of alcoholic drink, namely a 12 pack of small bottles of Budweiser beer and 12 bottles of Vodka Kick.

At the party, a large paddling pool was provided for the use of the guests. The Claimant said that people started jumping and bellyflopping into the pool. There were six or seven people who jumped in several times. One girl was thrown into the pool.

The Claimant did not arrive with any swimwear but during the party was provided with some by a friend. The Claimant changed into the swimwear and then said to a friend “watch me go” and went across to the pool intending to do a bellyflop and made a big splash. However, he misjudged the jump and landed head-first in the pool. He doesn't remember what happened after that. As a result, he sustained serious spinal injuries. He brought a claim against the Defendant in negligence.

The Claimant alleged that by allowing the pool to be used, the Defendant had created a foreseeable risk of danger and injury. Also that by not intervening earlier and more forcefully when a number of guests had been running and jumping into the pool, the Defendant had created a situation with an obvious risk of serious injury.

The Claimant alleged the area around the pool was wet. There had been a lot of splashing and water had gone over the side. The Claimant could not explain how he ended up with such injuries if he only fell in. He had run from the bench to the pool. He did not slip and fall backwards, his momentum was forwards.

The Defendant stated that as the party went on the children “got a little bit boisterous”. Some were jumping in the pool and splashing. People started to run and jump in but he maintained that he was keeping an eye on them. The Defendant served food and the pool was empty for approximately 10 minutes prior to the accident. Out of the corner of his eye the Defendant saw someone run as if to dive. The Defendant said he felt he had dealt with the boisterousness by serving the food and did not think he should have done more.

The Court considered the various issues in order.
  • The Court found the Defendant had bought a modest quantity of alcohol. There was no evidence that anyone at the party drank alcohol to the point where they were misbehaving, rude or aggressive, or unsteady on their feet. 
  • The Court did not accept on the balance of probabilities that anyone did a somersault through the air, nor a dive, nor tried to do a bellyflop or star jump. 
  • The Court accepted that when things seemed to be getting rather boisterous the Defendant told people that the food was ready and that this caused a break in the action and that no-one was in the pool at the time of the accident.  
  • The final issue was whether this incident occurred because the Claimant slipped on grass which had been allowed to become very wet. The Court did not find on the balance of probabilities that the Claimant did slip. Even if the Court had found that he did slip on wet grass, this would not have been enough to establish liability on the part of the Defendant. The use of a paddling pool by a number of teenagers, whether boisterous or not, will inevitably lead to some spillage.
The Claimant’s claim was dismissed. It had not been reasonably foreseeable, even after a number of boys had jumped into the pool feet first, that someone would have attempted to carry out a dive or a bellyflop and thus suffer grave injury.