Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<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.
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.
Features
A developer challenging two fees imposed by a town as part of the price of obtaining subdivision approval claimed in its suit that the Town of Monroe's Local Law 3 was unconstitutional.
Features
In a recent and critical ruling, New York State Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman provided a rare victory for solvent defendants in asbestos litigation. Refusing to go along with a prior ruling by the Second Circuit, Judge Freedman interpreted Article 16 of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules to hold that defendants in asbestos litigation are entitled to decrease their respective shares of liability to take into account the percentage of liability that should have been apportioned to other would-be defendants who were not named in the case because of a prior event of bankruptcy. Until now, liability was apportioned only among those defendants who were present in the lawsuit, with the other defendants being deemed 'unavailable' for purposes of sharing in liability. In this most recent iteration on the subject, Justice Freedman agreed with the defendants who argued that a bankruptcy filing of a potential defendant does not divest a plaintiff of jurisdiction that it might otherwise have had over the bankrupt entity.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
It is often the case that juries are only too eager to award punitive damages that are excessively large when compared to the potential damages or actual damage done. In 1996, the Supreme Court made an effort in <i>BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore</i>, 517 U.S. 559, to curb the effects of this behavior by imposing territorial limitations on the conduct that juries may consider when calculating the size of punitive damages. Specifically, the Court held that states could not consider out-of-state conduct in punitive damages calculations when such conduct was legal in other states. The <i>BMW</i> decision was based on principles of state sovereignty, comity, federalism, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Features
Previous <b>Practice Tips</b> have discussed the usefulness of the Internet in locating expert witnesses and in researching medical issues present in your product liability case. (See February 2002 <b>Practice Tip</b> '<i>Search the Internet for Medical Experts</i>' and March 2002 <b>Practice Tip</b> '<i>Make use of Internet Medical Sites</i>'). Here is yet another way to use the Internet to your advantage in product liability litigation: Use it to locate and obtain old or otherwise difficult-to-obtain physical and documentary evidence.
After spending 4 years in prison for allegedly sexually abusing his children, a Leesburg, VA, attorney was recently acquitted of the charges in what may be Virginia's first case in which the susceptibility of children to suggestion played a major role.