Case Notes
September 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
State Farm v. Campbell: Curtailment of Punitive Damages?
September 01, 2003
For the fifth time in 12 years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the imposition of punitive damages and, once again, the Court articulated criteria and principles against which lower courts and litigants can measure the type of conduct that should support an award of punitive damages. <i>State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Campbell,</i> 123 S.Ct. 1513 (April 7, 2003).
Fear Factor: Supreme Court Permits Mental Anguish Damages for Fear of Cancer
September 01, 2003
The Supreme Court's March 10th ruling in <i>Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers,</i> No. 01-963, marks the Court's third recent foray into the federal tort law that is the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and provides ammunition for plaintiffs in product liability cases who are seeking to recover damages for mental anguish. In <i>Ayers,</i> the Court, by a 5-4 majority, held that mental anguish damages resulting from fear of cancer may be recovered under FELA by a railroad worker suffering from asbestosis caused by asbestos workplace exposure.
Practice Tip: Pleading Punitive Damages After Supreme Court's State Farm Decision
August 29, 2003
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any award of punitive damages designed to punish out-of-state conduct would not be permitted because it violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <i>State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell,</i> __US__, 2003 WL 1791206 (decided April 7, 2003). This decision will effect broad changes in current product liability law with respect to punitive damages; however, the most important immediate change to practitioners will be in pleading.
Manufacturers Beware: Liability When Warning Labels Are Ignored or Disobeyed
August 29, 2003
Manufacturers may be surprised to learn that a growing number of courts are awarding damages to plaintiffs who have ignored or failed to follow product warning labels and instructions. Courts have often barred plaintiffs from recovering in such cases by applying a presumption that product warnings will be read and heeded. This has provided a safe harbor from liability for manufacturers and sellers.
Around the Firms
August 28, 2003
Movement among major law firms and corporations.
Understanding the Rights and Obligations Of Your Military Reservist Employees
August 28, 2003
Last month, the authors provided background on the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and employee entitlements under the Act. This month, analysis of the Act concludes with a look at reemployment rights upon the employees' return and USERRA's effect on other laws.
Multi-State Firms Take Advantage of Illinois' Limited Liability
August 28, 2003
Effective July 1, 2003, pursuant to rules recently adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court, law firms with Illinois offices will be able to practice as limited liability partnerships (LLPs). In addition, co-owners of law firms organized as limited liability legal entities (ie, as members of LLPs or limited liability companies (LLCs), or as shareholders of professional corporations (PCs)) will be able to avoid exposure to vicarious liability for malpractice committed by other lawyers in their firms, if their firms meet and maintain specified minimum amounts of malpractice insurance or other proof of financial responsibility.
Are Law Firm 'Partners' Really 'Employees'?
August 28, 2003
Law firm management often assumes that some attorneys, such as partners, shareholders and of counsels, are not covered by various civil rights statutes, <i>eg</i>, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). As firms which have been sued by such attorneys or which have faced broad Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigations have learned, however, such assumptions are often not well founded.
