By Lawrence Landskroner

They are silent, invisible, highly lethal and loose in our environment.

They are not characters in a Halloween movie but very real threats to our health and the health of our future generations. They are toxic substances, the byproducts of our industrial age.

Insidious by their invisible nature, these toxic substances come in many forms. Among the most familiar are chemical poisons such as asbestos, lead, mercury, DDT and silica; drugs such as thalidomide; and nuclear radiation released from reactors, factories and bombs. All are corporate-bred and released into the environment to preserve short-term profits. Near-sighted corporate America, whose reason for being is to turn a profit regardless of future consequences, has largely gone unregulated by government. As a result these toxic substances, byproducts of unconstrained greed, are rampant in the environment.

In order to discipline the unbridled corporate powers and compensate the victims of impersonal business decisions, individuals have as their recourse the legal system.

The legal system can obtain justice for the injured individuals and deter negative corporate behavior. Additionally, legislative action can be galvanized as result of the individual bringing his claim to court and receiving public attention.

Of course, when and individual is victimized by a toxic substance, the most pressing concern is compensation for himself and his family. In order for an individual victimized by a toxic substance to receive compensation, seven major elements of his case must be demonstrated.

First, it must be established that these victims were exposed to a toxic substance. Exposure usually occurs when a victim has inhaled or ingested a toxic substance or a toxic substance was absorbed through the skin. There are obvious ways to detect exposure, such as and unusual smell or a visible cloud of gas. However, in many cased, the victim is not even aware of his exposure. In these more difficult instances, symptoms the victim exhibits must be taken into account. These may vary widely, but some common symptoms include headaches, dizziness or loss of memory. Additionally, increased dizziness or deadening of the senses may occur.

Employers themselves may have documents outlining when and where exposures have occurred. Employers often keep injury and illness logs or other business records that indicate employee activities.

Second, the victim's illness or injury must be connected to his exposre to the toxic substance. This is oftentimes a difficult obstacle but one that can be and has been overcome. The initial step here is to demonstrate that the chemical the victim was exposed to was harmful. Expert testimony is then needed to link the individual's past exposure to his current illness.

Third, it must be established that the victim exhibited certain signs or symptoms normally associate with the illness. However, a number of jurisdictions now recognize a cause of action even if these classics symptoms have not yet appeared. These jurisdictions understand that an exposure to a toxic substance may contribute to an illness in the future. In these progressive jurisdictions, the consequences of the individual's exposure to the toxic substance can be examined for its real current and future effects.

Fourth, it must be shown that the victim developed symptoms within a reasonable period after exposure. However, as there are individual biological variations, the individual's responses to toxic substance will not always be uniform. Consequently, even when symptoms do not develop within a normative time frame, a victim's case can still be prosecuted. Delayed symptoms simply may demonstrate these very real biological variations.

Fifth, the signs and symptoms of the victim to his illness are consistent with those symptoms exhibited by animals during laboratory tests with the toxin. This is merely to establish that the toxic substance in question is a known harm-causing agent. While animals and humans are obviously psychologically and physiologically different, there are enough physiological similarities in humans and some animals to at least present credible evidence of this substance as a harm-causing agent.

Sixth these signs and symptoms developed by the victim are consistent with those exhibited by other humans exposed to the same toxic substance. Obviously, if a link can be established showing that a toxic substance is a known harm-causing again to humans the cause will be much easier to prove. The source for this evidence can be obtained from government of private research studies. Once it can be shown that other humans have developed similar symptoms as result of exposure to the toxic substance, there will be on question as to the toxic substance's harmful nature.

Seventh, the signs and the symptoms developed by the victim were not caused by other toxic substances, injuries or diseases. Obviously, if the cause of the victim's injury is the result of causative agents other than what the victim is claiming, the case will be headed in the wrong direction. As a result, counsel must undertake extensive studies scrutinizing the victim's particular circumstances. Indeed, if there is a victim of exposure to toxic chemicals, this evidence can be discovered and established at trail.

As a result of the public's and the law's awareness of environmentally caused illnesses, individuals need not remain helpless victims of corporate avarice. The legal system works and provides the arena where individuals can receive compensation and justice can be served. The best thing all of us can do is make ourselves aware of this silent danger and learn as much about it as possible. The horrors of a silent spring must be avoided, not only for our own sake, but for the sake of future generations.

Contributions were made to this article by George M. George, a graduate of Case Western Reserve University Law School.

About the Author

Lawrence Landskroner is the senior member of the law firm of Landskroner & Phillips. Their offices are located on the 11th floor of the 75 Public Square Building, Cleveland, Ohio; 216/241-700. The firm was regional counsel for the UAW in northern Ohio and western Pennsylvania for 11 years. The firm is special counsel for the attorney general of the state of Ohio, general of the state of Ohio, general counsel for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, regional counsel for Shell Oil Employees Association, and represents other smaller labor unions and organizations.

Mr. Lanskroner obtained one of the largest single jury verdicts in the state of Ohio against Press Automation Systems, Inc., on April 30 1981. The verdict was for $2.5 million in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. In addition, Lanskroner obtained a $900,00 award against the city of Cleveland and the Standard Oil Company. The case involved the city's negligence in leaving a street sweeper in the middle of a highway.

Mr. Lanskroner was board member of Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital, Highland View Hospital and Sunny Acres Hospital. He has been practicing law in Ohio since 1951, and is a member of the American Trial Lawyers Association, and the Cleveland and Cuyahoga Bar Associations.

He attended Dennison and Miami University and he received his law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee. He was president of the Vanderbilt Alumni Association for Northern Ohio for seven years and is a board-certified diplomate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy and a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates.