Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
ALI Changed Expert Testimony Standard, But Should States Follow It?
We are both members of the American Law Institutes (ALI), an institution that's been around since 1923. Membership is made up of judges, practicing attorneys and legal scholars from both the United States and the international legal community. The ALI employs a deliberative process to gain insights into its various members' understanding and opinions of the law, then it drafts and publishes Restatements of the Law, model codes, and legal studies to promote, as the ALI Web site home page states, 'the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work.'
We have been reviewing the ALI's Tentative Draft No. 5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. The most salient thing at the moment in this lengthy document is the stub chapter ' Chapter 5, titled, 'Factual Cause' ' which has only one additional section in it, ' 28. Section 28 stated in its first paragraph the general rule that plaintiffs have the burden of proof, and in its second paragraph a version of the old Summers v. Tice (199 P.2d 1 (Cal.1948)) form of alternative causation.
There is only one comment under' 28, comment e, and that comment has very little to do with either of the black-letter paragraphs. Instead, comment e sought to abolish ' you heard that right, abolish' any requirement that an expert witness testify to a 'reasonable degree of medical certainty' or 'medical probability' or any of the similar formulations that courts have used for half a century or more to ensure that in-court expert witnesses use the same standards before a jury that they would use in their everyday practices.
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.