Personal Injury Products Liability Civil Procedure

Read Personal Injury Law updates, news, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

One Expert In, One Expert Out in Illinois Asbestos Case

An Illinois federal judge recently approved only one of two well-known asbestos experts to testify in a former pipefitter’s asbestos exposure case. U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee of the Northern District of Illinois held...more

Your Deposition: What to Expect [Video]

Depositions sound intimidating to any lay person involved in a civil lawsuit. Whether the case is about a personal injury, a commercial dispute, an employment issue or any other kind of claim that winds up in civil court,...more

Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

In Gottschall v. Crane Co., (No. A136516, Filed 10/8/2014, published 10/22/2014), the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held a company that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products could not prevail under...more

Contaminated Oysters in Virginia Restaurant Enough for Jurisdiction Under "Stream of Commerce" Test

Contaminated oysters served at a Roanoke restaurant were placed in the "stream of commerce" by a Connecticut seafood supplier, and thus served as the basis for the Western District of Virginia to exercise personal...more

The Burden of Proof -- What must plaintiffs prove to win their case? [Video]

Attorney Brian Denney discusses the "burden of proof" in a civil case; including the concept of "preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case and how that affects the outcome in a case. Attorney Denney reflects on the...more

"Generic" Logic Helps Branded Drug Achieve Dismissal

A federal district court has held that design defect claims against a brand pharmaceutical manufacturer are preempted by federal law. Booker v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 3:12 oe 40000, 2014 WL 5113305 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 10,...more

Engle: a mass tort run amok

In This Issue: -Facts -2006 Florida Supreme Court decision -Failure to investigate -Eleventh Court decision -Comment The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in In re Engle Cases...more

Maryland Court Reconsiders a Company’s Duty to Warn of Asbestos-containing Replacement Parts It Did Not Manufacture or Otherwise...

Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals recently reconsidered the duty to warn of asbestos-containing replacement parts that the defendants did not manufacture or place in the stream of commerce in Philip Royce May v. Air &...more

Is There Anything “Good” about the “Good Samaritan” Rule?

Every first-year law student can recite the “Good Samaritan” rule: The ordinary bystander has no legal duty to rescue a drowning person, but if you voluntarily undertake the duty to rescue her, you must not be negligent in...more

Product Liability Update - October 2014

In this Issue: - Massachusetts Appeals Court Holds Trial Court Properly Instructed Jury on Absolute “Unreasonable Use” Warranty Defense Where Plaintiff Ignored Warning Label and Safety Manual and Had Been Drinking, and...more

Eleventh Circuit Refuses to Credit Expert’s Guess on Causation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has issued an important decision on expert testimony, Hughes v. Kia Motors. Patricia Hughes filed a wrongful death action against Kia Motors after her daughter,...more

Update: California Supreme Court to Review Secondary Asbestos Exposure Cases

In Sedgwick’s June 2014 Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Update, we reported on two conflicting decisions from different California appellate courts regarding companies’ duty to prevent “take home exposures” to asbestos...more

LITIGATION ALERT: Texas Supreme Court Limits the Application of the Economic Loss Rule

In Texas, the economic loss rule has been applied by courts to prevent a plaintiff from recovering purely economic losses in a negligence or strict liability action. In products liability cases, when a loss results from the...more

Ongoing Reglan Litigation — New Appellate Ruling

Earlier this week, a Missouri appeals court issued an opinion that will hopefully have a significant impact on ongoing litigation against the manufacturers of metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan. In this latest...more

The Absolute Pollution Exclusion May Not Be That “Absolute”

The Absolute Pollution Exclusion (“APE”) contained in current general liability insurance policies excludes coverage for costs related to the cleanup of environmental pollution. Insurance companies have taken the position...more

Asbestos Alert: Failure To Recognize A Defendant’s Name Insufficient To Support Summary Judgment

Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (July 21, 2014) - Metalclad was an insulation contractor. Mark Ganoe worked in Department 132 at Goodyear Tire &...more

DePuy Pinnacle Litigation Update

The coordinated litigation over Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implants pending before Judge Kinkeade is also known as MDL No. 2244. The MDL was established in May of 2011. Since then, more than 60 million pages of documents...more

West Virginia Product Liability Law Monograph

Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. - In 1979, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decided Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., the leading case in West Virginia product liability law. 253...more

Outside the Scope? New York Court of Appeals Limits the Disclosure of Medical Reports in Childhood Lead Poisoning Cases

The New York Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial court’s order requiring plaintiffs in lead poisoning cases to produce detailed medical reports chronicling each alleged injury and causally connecting those injuries...more

First Circuit Court of Appeals Refuses to Relax Injury Requirement for Medical Monitoring Claims

In Genereux v. Raytheon Co., No. 13-1921, 2014 WL 2579908 (1st Cir. June 10, 2014), the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against class action plaintiffs seeking recovery for medical monitoring costs...more

Texas Supreme Court Reaffirms Causation Standard

In Bostic, et. al. v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 57 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 1091, the Supreme Court of Texas reaffirmed that the “substantial factor” causation test applies in asbestos personal injury cases, defined the quantitative...more

Pennsylvania Statute of Repose Applies to Asbestos Claims

In Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 2014 Pa. Super. 132, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the statute of repose applicable to designers and constructors of improvements to real property applied to asbestos claims....more

Florida High Court to Decide Which Test Governs Component Parts Doctrine

On April 8, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an asbestos case concerning the liability of a defendant who has sold a component part to a manufacturer who then incorporates the part into its own...more

Texas Supreme Court Enforces Medical Criteria for Claims Involving Asbestos and Declares the Application of Chapter 90...

In a 5–4 opinion issued in Union Carbide Corporation v. Daisy E. Synatzske et al. No. 12-0617 (Tex. July 3, 2014), the Texas Supreme Court held that Chapter 90 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code as applied to the...more

Product Liability Update - July 2014

In This Issue: - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Foreign Manufacturer Which Pled Meritorious Personal Jurisdiction Defense in Answer, But Did Not Move to Dismiss, Forfeited Defense By Participating in...more

303 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 13

Follow Personal Injury Updates on: