<i>This is the first of a two-part article. Part two will appear next month.</i> Product liability practitioners must be intimately familiar with the strategy and tactics of challenging expert testimony under Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid., and the so-called <i>Daubert</i> trilogy of cases. Nearly 10 years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), vastly changed the road map for the admission of expert testimony. A body of case law has grown since that decision, providing numerous avenues to challenge admission of expert testimony. Because product liability cases usually rely on expert testimony, <i>Daubert</i> challenges are particularly important in them.

Features

The latest rulings you need to know.

The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Features

In the January 2003 Practice Tip, I discussed the list of 'issues, witnesses and exhibits' one should compile to highlight the evidence required to establish a <i>prima facie</i> product liability case. In this issue, I discuss two individuals with whom the trial lawyer should meet within the 30 days prior to trial: the client and the physician. In a future tip, I will discuss meeting with the engineering expert. For ease of reference, all individuals are deemed male. For purposes of the discussion, the case concerns injury caused by a defective machine.

Features

A developer challenging two fees imposed by a town as part of the price of obtaining subdivision approval claimed in its suit that the Town of Monroe's Local Law 3 was unconstitutional.

Features

In a recent and critical ruling, New York State Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman provided a rare victory for solvent defendants in asbestos litigation. Refusing to go along with a prior ruling by the Second Circuit, Judge Freedman interpreted Article 16 of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules to hold that defendants in asbestos litigation are entitled to decrease their respective shares of liability to take into account the percentage of liability that should have been apportioned to other would-be defendants who were not named in the case because of a prior event of bankruptcy. Until now, liability was apportioned only among those defendants who were present in the lawsuit, with the other defendants being deemed 'unavailable' for purposes of sharing in liability. In this most recent iteration on the subject, Justice Freedman agreed with the defendants who argued that a bankruptcy filing of a potential defendant does not divest a plaintiff of jurisdiction that it might otherwise have had over the bankrupt entity.

Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

It is often the case that juries are only too eager to award punitive damages that are excessively large when compared to the potential damages or actual damage done. In 1996, the Supreme Court made an effort in <i>BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore</i>, 517 U.S. 559, to curb the effects of this behavior by imposing territorial limitations on the conduct that juries may consider when calculating the size of punitive damages. Specifically, the Court held that states could not consider out-of-state conduct in punitive damages calculations when such conduct was legal in other states. The <i>BMW</i> decision was based on principles of state sovereignty, comity, federalism, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.