Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Suing Experts in Product Liability Cases
It is not pleasant to contemplate suing an expert hired to testify for your client. Nevertheless, an attorney's cautious and prudent behavior may be enhanced and professional anguish minimized by frank consideration of the unpleasant possibilities.
The pivotal questions, around which numerous subsidiary issues easily cluster, are these:
- If a claim has been thrown out because an expert botched his assignment or because the expert was found unreliable or untrustworthy in key areas, does that open the expert to being sued for professional malpractice, negligence or breach of contract?
- Are the lawyers who retained that expert exposed to direct suit by frustrated clients or third-party claims by experts who are sued by losing litigants?
Variations on these thematic questions can proliferate. What if a plaintiff were forced, because of a court's “gatekeeping” finding of expert unreliability pursuant to Daubert or Frye, to settle a sizeable claim for a fraction of what it was worth? Could the expert who flunked the reliability threshold be sued for the difference between the pittance paid in settlement and the more generous amount that may have been obtained had the expert been allowed to enter the reliability “gate”? Could the lawyer who hired, prepared and presented the expert be implicated in claims based on the expert's failure to pass muster?
Do experts who hold themselves out as professionally gifted or capable of giving opinions on subjects such as defect, design, causation, warnings and damages vouch for their own trustworthiness or reliability? Is there something akin to an expert's implied warranty of reliability? Is that an assumption lawyers who retain experts should reasonably make or must lawyers be more suspicious, more proactive and critical in ferreting out below-par expertise? If so, how can that duty practicably be discharged when lawyers are not versed in the scientific or technical discipline of the expert? Will lawyers get sucked into litigation regardless?
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.
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?