Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Using Jury Research to Help Overcome the Challenges of Common-Sense Causation
The issue of causation is at the core of most product liability trials. The challenge for litigants, particularly defendants, is that jurors often find common-sense notions of causation more persuasive than those based on complex or scientific evidence, even though the latter may be more accurate or correct. Common-sense causation arguments are simple arguments that are consistent with lay jurors' everyday experiences. Indeed, common-sense notions of causation are correct in most of our day-to-day activities. Accordingly, jurors come to trust their common-sense notions of causation and find it disconcerting when those notions are challenged by trial counsel. The result is that jurors who are presented with competing theories of causation are often likely to prefer the common-sense theory, even if it is not correct or plausible from the perspective of science or engineering. This is especially true of jurors who are not motivated to consider and integrate a large volume of complex evidence carefully and thoughtfully.
In product liability litigation, trial consultants can help identify when and where common-sense notions of causation are likely to pose obstacles to their clients' arguments and can assist the trial team with crafting and testing arguments to overcome the challenges of common-sense causation. Well-researched psychological principles suggest a number of particular characteristics of an event that are likely to bolster common-sense notions of causation. Consider how many of your cases involve one or more of the following characteristics:
Spatial Proximity
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.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.