Features

Analysis of the latest cases of interest to your practice.

Features

A rundown of the latest cases.

If your product liability case involves damage to a specific organ, <i>eg,</i> heart damage allegedly caused by the use of fen-phen, professional organizations such as the American College of Cardiology (ACC) may offer some assistance. You can go to the association's Web site (www.acc.org) for information on a number of conditions.

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.

<i>This is the first of a two-part article. Part two will appear next month.</i> Product liability practitioners must be intimately familiar with the strategy and tactics of challenging expert testimony under Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid., and the so-called <i>Daubert</i> trilogy of cases. Nearly 10 years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), vastly changed the road map for the admission of expert testimony. A body of case law has grown since that decision, providing numerous avenues to challenge admission of expert testimony. Because product liability cases usually rely on expert testimony, <i>Daubert</i> challenges are particularly important in them.

Features

The latest rulings you need to know.

The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Features

In the January 2003 Practice Tip, I discussed the list of 'issues, witnesses and exhibits' one should compile to highlight the evidence required to establish a <i>prima facie</i> product liability case. In this issue, I discuss two individuals with whom the trial lawyer should meet within the 30 days prior to trial: the client and the physician. In a future tip, I will discuss meeting with the engineering expert. For ease of reference, all individuals are deemed male. For purposes of the discussion, the case concerns injury caused by a defective machine.