All claims are different and are fact-specific, but you typically have to prove the following:
The plaintiff was exposed to a dangerous substance;
The plaintiff became ill or injured as a result of this exposure; and
The defendant was responsible, or at least partially responsible, for the exposure, OR was responsible for failing to protect the plaintiff from exposure.
These types of claims are typically brought under one of the following four causes of action,:
Negligence. To be successful under a theory of negligence, you must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered injuries, and the injuries were directly caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.
Fraud. Fraud is often also referred to as intentional misrepresentation or deceit. It often refers to concealment as well. In order to recover compensation based on fraud, the plaintiff must prove that they relied upon an assertion of fact that the defendant made to their detriment. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally made a statement that wasn’t true or accurate with reckless disregard for the truth.
Strict liability. Strict liability is a legal theory where the defendant is liable for creating a dangerous situation that caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff doesn’t need to prove that the defendant had any intent or that they failed to protect them. Strict liability means the simple fact that there was a dangerous condition that makes the defendant liable. An extreme example is if a defendant dumps toxic waste near a school. Even if the company took protective measures, this is so inherently dangerous that they are likely to be held liable based on strict liability.