Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Voir Dire</i> of Expert Witnesses
The use of expert testimony is essential in almost all medical malpractice cases. In order to survive summary judgment or directed verdict, the plaintiff must usually submit expert testimony relating to the proper standard of care as well as causation. In most states, in the absence of res ipsa loquitur, the proper medical standard of care must be established by an expert from the medical community and not by a lay witness. Because of the complexity of most medical practice cases, it is often impossible for the fact finders to intelligently evaluate the facts without the application of expert knowledge.
In a jury trial, the jury will customarily compare opposing experts to make an initial determination as to which expert to believe and how much weight to assign to the testimony of each. One of the primary ways in which jurors decide which expert to believe is a comparison of qualifications.
Because experts are critical in determining the applicable medical standard of care, excluding or limiting an opposing party's expert testimony can often make or break a case. Although exclusion is uncommon, a good trial attorney should always consider ways in which to effectively cross-examine an opposing party's expert on his or her qualifications. At best, an attack on an opposing expert's qualifications may completely preclude him or her from testifying as an expert. If exclusion is not an option, it may be possible to limit the areas in which the expert is permitted to testify. An attack on an opposing expert's qualifications may also, even if the expert is qualified, serve to discredit the expert's testimony and to convince the jurors that they should not give the expert's testimony great weight.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?