Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyCommercial LawFeaturesKickerLitigationLJN NewslettersNewsSectionsTopics

Predicting the Tides

By Pamela R. Kaplan
April 01, 2016

It is a fact pattern common to asbestos-related lawsuits: A plaintiff recalls generally working around different products that may or may not have contained asbestos, but cannot pinpoint specific time periods or locations where those products were present and could have exposed the plaintiff to asbestos. Typically, the alleged exposure occurred three or more decades ago, with no potential corroborating documents or witnesses surviving to the present date. This scenario places defendants in the untenable position of defending a claim without access to any information on the products, or the alleged exposure, that will either confirm or deny that the identified products were both present in the plaintiff's workplace and actually contained asbestos.

Recognizing this issue, some courts have attempted to delineate standards requiring that plaintiffs make at least a threshold showing of their exposure to products manufactured or supplied by the defendant in order to avoid summary judgment. However, the standards may differ from one jurisdiction to another, bringing questions of venue and choice of law back to the forefront of these lawsuits.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.