Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In product liability, toxic tort, and even medical malpractice litigation, the science in the relevant field is often a crucial battleground, and expert witnesses will do battle over treatises, journal articles, and the like. As every law student knows, scientific publications are inadmissible hearsay. Under the learned treatise rule, an expert witness may testify about scientific publications that have been qualified as learned treatises, but they do not come into evidence and so may not be published to the jury.
Many practitioners and judges are so used to the learned treatise rule that they treat it as an automatic rule for the evidentiary treatment of learned treatises, not thinking about the fact that it is an exception to the hearsay rule. As such, the rule, and the underlying exclusion of learned treatises from evidence, applies only when they are being offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein ' as, of course, they ordinarily are in a clash between experts.
When offered for a non-hearsay purpose, learned treatises should be admissible into evidence. Most notably, learned treatises are often probative of a party's state of mind, as for example when the plaintiff accuses a corporate defendant of negligently, recklessly, or maliciously selling a product while it knew or should have known that the product was dangerous. The defendant should be able to present to the jury the publications and treatises that were available at the relevant time upon which it relied in forming its opinion that its product was safe. The argument to the court is, for example, that the proffered scientific study is not being offered to prove the matter asserted (eg, that Product X is not associated with cancer), but to demonstrate the innocence of the defendant's state of mind in relying on the study and continuing to market Product X. The study is admissible not with regard to causation, but liability.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?