Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Predicting the Tides
It is a fact pattern common to asbestos-related lawsuits: A plaintiff recalls generally working around different products that may or may not have contained asbestos, but cannot pinpoint specific time periods or locations where those products were present and could have exposed the plaintiff to asbestos. Typically, the alleged exposure occurred three or more decades ago, with no potential corroborating documents or witnesses surviving to the present date. This scenario places defendants in the untenable position of defending a claim without access to any information on the products, or the alleged exposure, that will either confirm or deny that the identified products were both present in the plaintiff's workplace and actually contained asbestos.
Recognizing this issue, some courts have attempted to delineate standards requiring that plaintiffs make at least a threshold showing of their exposure to products manufactured or supplied by the defendant in order to avoid summary judgment. However, the standards may differ from one jurisdiction to another, bringing questions of venue and choice of law back to the forefront of these lawsuits.
In the recent case of Feaster v. A.W. Chesterton Company, No. 14-3417, 2015 WL 9308341 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey tackled two distinct questions on this front. First, should maritime law apply to the claim for asbestos exposure, or should New Jersey law govern? Second, based on the governing standard, was defendant General Electric entitled to summary judgment?
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 customercare@alm.com 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.
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.
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.
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?