Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Third-Party Asbestos Decisions: The Impact of Relationships And Public Policy Concerns
A recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court has provided more clarity about how a state court is likely to rule in asbestos cases alleging third-party liability. States appear to be looking more to the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that state courts are likely to see a spate of third-party asbestos liability cases.
In July, the Michigan Supreme Court found that Ford Motor Company owed no duty to the plaintiff ' a woman who allegedly contracted mesothelioma by washing her stepfather's clothes in the late 1950s and early 60s. In the process, the court further demonstrated that a state's reliance on relationship as opposed to foreseeability is a major determinant for whether a premises owner owes a duty to a third party. The court also cited the nation's growing litigation 'crisis,' which the U.S. Supreme Court has termed the alarming increase in asbestos-related cases, as a basis for its decision.
High courts in Georgia and New York have ruled similarly in third-party asbestos cases. Both of these courts have cited the relationship between the parties involved as more important than foreseeability and noted the need to avoid a potentially endless pool of plaintiffs. The New Jersey Supreme Court, the only other state high court to weigh in on this issue, ruled in favor of a third party because that state gives great weight to foreseeability.
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.