A comparative study of "civil liability caused by asbestos" in French ‎and American law; Providing models to solve the shortcomings of ‎Iranian law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University

2 Assistant Prof of Faculty of Law and Political Science , shahid chamran university of ahvaz, Ahvaz, iran

Abstract

In this article, the civil liability caused by asbestos has been studied comparatively in French and American law, to provide models to solve the shortcomings of Iranian law, with  a descriptive-analytical research method. The main question was about the bases and elements of the responsibility caused by asbestos and the effective solutions to support asbestos victims. The result was that in terms of the basis of responsibility, in American law, the responsibility is based on strict liability. French law bases the responsibility on the system of employer's responsibility towards the employee, and by establishing the safety obligation of the type of obligation of result and the unforgivable fault of the employer and the assumption of his knowledge, only force majeure is excluded. In terms of the conditions and elements of civil liability, both countries have supported asbestos victims by developing the concept and scope of compensable damages and the assumed relationship of responsibility. In order to guarantee and speed up the payment of damages, in French law, a "special compensation system for asbestos victims" has been established and by creating an independent fund, the cases of reference to the fund and the amount of damages that can be compensated by the fund, with certain mechanisms, has been established. American law has also taken the same steps. It is suggested that our legislators should establish a special compensation system for asbestos victims by leaving aside fault as the basis of responsibility and facilitating the proof of causation. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Bartel, 316 F. Supp. 2d at 611.
  2. Behrens, M.A. & Anderson, W.L. (2008). The Any Exposure” Theory: an Unsouned Basis for Asbestos Causation and Expert Testimony. Southwestern University Law Review. 479-510.
  3. Bernstein, D.E. (2003). Keeping Junk Science out of Asbestos Litigation. L. REV. 31 (1). 11-28.
  4. Carroll, S.J. & et AL. (2005). Asbestos Litigation. United States: RAND Corporation.
  5. Celotex Corp. v. Tate, 797 S.W.2d 197, 203 (Tex. App. 1990), Writ dismissed by agreement (Aug. 16, 1996).
  6. Coggiola, N. (2009). Asbestos Cases in the Italian Courts: Duelling with Uncertainty. inDret. 4. 1-34.
  7. Gallage-Alwis, S. & Massé, L. (2022). Toxic and Hazardous Substances Litigation. 5 (https://www.iadclaw.org/assets/1/17/ Toxic_Hazardous_Substances_January_2022.pdf).
  8. Hanlon, P.M. & Smetak, A. (2007). Asbestos Changes. NYU Annual Survey of American Law. 62. 525-606.
  9. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/asbestos.
  10. John Andrew GREGG, Executor of the Estate of John I. Gregg, Jr., Deceased, Appellee, v. V-J AUTO PARTS, INC., Appellant. No. 38 EAP 2005, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Decided December 28, 2007. GRANT et al. v. GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION et al. Aug. 30, 1999. Court of Appeals of Georgia )Available at: https://cite.case.law/ga-app/239/748/).
  11. Jones v. John Crane, Inc., 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 144, 151-52 (Ct. App. 2005).
  12. Kesner v. Superior Court and Haver v. BNSF Railway Company. No. S219534 and S299919 December 1, 2016.
  13. Lambert-Faivre, Y. et Porchy-Simon, S. (2016). Droit du dommage corporel, Systèmes d’indeminisation. 8e éd. Paris: Dalloz.
  14. Letter Ruling, In Re Asbestos Litig., Cause No. 2004-03964 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Jan. 20, 2004).
  15. Letter Ruling, In Re Asbestos Litig., Cause No. 2004-03964 Matter of Seventh Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. 200 (available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2004/2004-24188.html).
  16. Letter ruling, In the Asbestos, Cause No. 2004-3,964 (Tex. Dist. Ct. July 18, 2007).
  17. Manaouil, C. et Al. (2006). Compensation of asbestos victims in France. Medicine and law. 25 (3). 435-443.
  18. Miyamoto, K. et Al (2011). Asbestos Disaster Lessons from Japan’s Experience, London/New York: Springer Tokyo Dordrecht Heidelberg.
  19. Salvatori, L. et Al. (2003). Asbestos: The current situation in Europe. London: ASTIN Colloquium.
  20. Schwartz, V.E. & Lorber, L. (2000). A Letter to the Nation's Trial Judges: How the Focus on Efficiency Is Hurting You and Innocent Victims in Asbestos Liability Cases. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 24. 247-258.
  21. Schwartz, V.E. & Tedesco, R.M. (2001). The Law of Unintended Consequences in Asbestos Litigation: How Efforts to Streamline the Litigation Have Fueled More Claims. L.J. 71. 531-547.
  22. Shulman v Brenntag N. Am., Inc. Docket Number: 190025/2017 Supreme Court, New York County. November 19, 2018.
  23. Sobczak, F. (2013). Liability for Asbestos - Related Injuries. Doctoral Thesis. Datawyse. Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
  24. Stapleton, J. (2009). The Two Explosive Proof-of-Causation Doctrines Central to Asbestos Claims. Brooklyn Law Review. 74 (3). 1013.
  25. Wassernan, S.D. et Al. (2007). Asbestos Litigation in California: Can it Change for the Better? L. Rev. 34 (4). 883-925.
  26. White, M.J. (2003). UCSD and NBER, Understanding the Asbestos Crisis, Department of Economics University of California. 1-31.
  27. White, M.J. (2004). Asbestos and the Future of Mass Torts. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 18 (2). 183–204.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 2
Autumn $ Winter 2023-2024
January 2024
Pages 705-726

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics