Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Terminix Case: Causation in Mass Tort Litigation
On Aug. 27, 2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of Davidson County in Nashville, TN entered final judgment for Terminix International in a nine-plaintiff toxic-tort personal injury lawsuit. Ballentine v. Terminix Int'l Co., No. 98C-836 (Aug. 27, 2004 Order). The case demonstrates the use of a challenge to the admissibility of plaintiffs' causation evidence to dismantle a multi-plaintiff or mini-mass tort claim from a single toxic exposure, and it illustrates the importance to both sides of getting the scientific evidence right from the outset. The approach to a mini-mass tort involving injuries from a single exposure need be no different from that used in a single plaintiff's claim.
The plaintiffs, workers in a US Air reservation center at the Nashville airport, claimed that they suffered pulmonary and/or vocal cord injuries from an application at the center of the insecticide Gold Crest Vectrin 0.5%. The basis for the judgment was the court's determination that plaintiffs had not presented reliable scientific testimony to support their allegations that Vectrin could cause such injuries or had done so in the plaintiffs. Entry of judgment came after a long and unsuccessful series of attempts by plaintiffs to rehabilitate their science case. The case presented complex medical causation issues, which were further complicated by the presence in the same case of multiple plaintiffs.
The Facts
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.