Toxic Torts Products Liability

Read Toxic Torts news, alerts, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

Q&A With Carlton Fields' Gregory Cesarano

At Carlton Fields, Greg Cesarano focuses his practice on defense of corporations and manufacturers in products liability and commercial claims. He also leads Carlton Fields’ products and toxic tort liability practice group,...more

CWP 4750 of 2013 [Hemant Goswami vs. Union of India]

PIL - Ban Identified Carcinogens

The Writ petition is about the unrestricted commercial availability of many substances which are labelled as Group 1 (Class A) or Group 2A/2B Carcinogens (Sure-shot Cancer causing agents) by the WHO IARC (International Agency...more

Asbestos Alert: Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., et al. Ninth District Court of Appeals, Action #10-36142, 11-35020 (November 16,...

On March 25, 2013, the Ninth Circuit ordered that this case be reheard en banc. The hearing is currently expected to go forward during the week of June 24, 2013 in Seattle, Washington. A decision is expected within three...more

I've Got This Doctor You Gotta See!

In most personal injury actions the plaintiff is served with a Notice for an Independent Medical Examination. It has become so commonplace that no one really thinks twice about the demand. However, there are a few...more

Product Liability Annual Review -- 2012

In This Issue: Letter from Chair; Key Practice Highlights; Aviation; Consumer Products and Toxic Torts; Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices; Awards + Rankings; Publications; Key Contacts. Excerpt from...more

Gilbert LLP Convinces Sixth Circuit to Rule in Favor of Asbestos-Containing product Manufacturer-Policyholders

Comprehensive general liability policies limit the amount the insurer has to pay for each “occurrence”, which is typically defined as an “accident” or “exposure to [injurious] conditions”. Insurers and policyholders...more

"Every Breath" Theory: On Its Last Breaths?

The "every breath," or cumulative exposure opinion, has been proffered by plaintiffs' experts in asbestos cases to prove specific causation, regardless of the type of product or amount of exposure. The U.S. District Court for...more

Navigating Mass Torts and Product Liability (MTPL) Litigation in the U.S. Legal System: Litigation Challenges for Japanese MTPL...

In This Presentation: • Challenges of U.S. Courts • Specialized and Aggressive Plaintiff’s Bar and Contingency Fees • Jury Trials • Pretrial Discovery • Personal Jurisdiction • U.S.-Based Subsidiaries •...more

A Toxic And Mass Tort Update: Illinois Supreme Court Limits "Forum Shopping"

In its December 28, 2012 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a forum non conveniens decision reversing the St. Clair County Court and directing the trial court to dismiss plaintiff's asbestos case. Fennell v. Illinois...more

Seventh Circuit Reverses Remand Order in Removal Based on Federal Officer Removal Statute - Henry Ruppel v. CBS Corporation, ---...

On November 30, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois remanding an asbestos suit to Illinois state court. ...more

GAO reports on CPSC’s challenges in addressing product safety

The United States (US) Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) authority and ability to stay generally informed about new risks associated with consumer products and...more

Australia issues $1M fine for flammable children’s sleepwear

The Australian Federal Court has fined a children’s sleepwear brand $1 million in relation to its supply of unsafe children’s nightdresses and pajamas. According to Product Safety Australia, Cotton On Kids Pty Ltd supplied...more

Practical Implications Of Howell v. Hamilton Meat

The collateral source rule in a personal injury action or tort claim generally prevents the admission of evidence that the plaintiff will be compensated from a source other than the defendant for his/her injuries. This rule...more

US CPSC & Health Canada recall expanding toys

The United States (US) Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Health Canada issued a joint recall of expanding toys in the US and Canada. The toys, which go by the names Water Balz, Growing Skulls, H2O Orbs...more

Lone Pine Order Forces Plaintiffs to Ante Up

Last week, the court in In re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation granted Defendant Merck & Co.’s motion for a Lone Pine order. No. 06 MD 1789 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012). Lone Pine orders are valuable tools in defending mass...more

Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Update - October 2012: Washington Supreme Court Makes a Surprising About-Face in Third-Party...

The Supreme Court of Washington recently decided the case of Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. – a decision that flows against the trend of courts ruling that manufacturers of non-asbestos containing products cannot be held...more

When Are Witness Statements Protected As Attorney Work Product?

One of the first things an attorney does when representing a client in a particular matter is interview witnesses to learn the facts of the case, or have an investigator do such on their behalf. The attorney will almost...more

Asbestos Alert: A Navy Ship is Not A Product Under Maritime Law: MDL Judge Rules on Sophisticated User/Purchaser Defense and...

Mack v. General Electric Co., et al U.S.D.C., ED Pennsylvania, Action #2:10-78940-ER, (October 3, 2012) MDL No. 875, _____ F. Supp.2d _____ Deciding two issues of first impression, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Jr., who...more

Asbestos Alert: Maryland Court Rules on Substantial Factor

Dixon v. Ford Motor Company - Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (June 29, 2012) 2012WL2483315 A recent decision of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals may provide the basis for persuasive argument in California...more

Asbestos Alert! Analysis of Robinson v SSW, Inc.

This is an analysis of an asbestos wrongful death case where the claim was defeated because the defendant non-California corporate entity had dissolved. The court of appeal held that although California law contains a...more

COITO v. SUPERIOR COURT--Is It Heading Back to the Supreme Court?

On August 14, 2012, Judge William A. Mayhew of Stanislaw Superior Court issued his Notice of Hearing on Issues Re Remand in the case of Debra Coito v. State of California. The order requested that the following issues to be...more

Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Update: September 2012 -- New Hampshire Supreme Court Reverses “Light Cigarette” Class...

In Karen L. Lawrence v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., No. 2011-574 (N.H. August 21, 2012), the New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned a class certification that had been granted in a case brought under the New Hampshire Consumer...more

Young Lawyers' Recommended Reading List

A summary of four key books for young lawyers to read to assist in obtaining a better grasp on their trial advocacy skills in the courtroom. These four books will assist in defeating defense strategies and connecting with...more

Ninth Circuit Finds No Duty to Warn in Light of the State of the Art

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a Taser manufacturer had no duty to warn of the risk that repeated shocks administered by its products could lead to death caused by metabolic acidosis, given the state of...more

Asbestos Alert! Analysis of Dixon v. Ford Motor Company

Analysis of Maryland appellate case regarding 'substantial factor' anslysis in asbestos litigation. Testimony of plaintiff expert Dr. Laura Welch was thrown out by the Court of Appeal (reversing the lower court) because her...more

297 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 12

Follow Toxic Torts Updates on: