Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When suing a foreign manufacturer, the plaintiff's attorney must take into account jurisdictional rules set by the Supreme Court as well as the long arm statute of his/her forum state.
The Supreme Court's March 10th ruling in <i>Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers,</i> No. 01-963, marks the Court's third recent foray into the federal tort law that is the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and provides ammunition for plaintiffs in product liability cases who are seeking to recover damages for mental anguish. In <i>Ayers,</i> the Court, by a 5-4 majority, held that mental anguish damages resulting from fear of cancer may be recovered under FELA by a railroad worker suffering from asbestosis caused by asbestos workplace exposure.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any award of punitive damages designed to punish out-of-state conduct would not be permitted because it violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <i>State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell,</i> __US__, 2003 WL 1791206 (decided April 7, 2003). This decision will effect broad changes in current product liability law with respect to punitive damages; however, the most important immediate change to practitioners will be in pleading.
Features
Manufacturers may be surprised to learn that a growing number of courts are awarding damages to plaintiffs who have ignored or failed to follow product warning labels and instructions. Courts have often barred plaintiffs from recovering in such cases by applying a presumption that product warnings will be read and heeded. This has provided a safe harbor from liability for manufacturers and sellers.
Last month, the authors provided background on the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and employee entitlements under the Act. This month, analysis of the Act concludes with a look at reemployment rights upon the employees' return and USERRA's effect on other laws.
Features
Effective July 1, 2003, pursuant to rules recently adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court, law firms with Illinois offices will be able to practice as limited liability partnerships (LLPs). In addition, co-owners of law firms organized as limited liability legal entities (ie, as members of LLPs or limited liability companies (LLCs), or as shareholders of professional corporations (PCs)) will be able to avoid exposure to vicarious liability for malpractice committed by other lawyers in their firms, if their firms meet and maintain specified minimum amounts of malpractice insurance or other proof of financial responsibility.
Law firm management often assumes that some attorneys, such as partners, shareholders and of counsels, are not covered by various civil rights statutes, <i>eg</i>, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). As firms which have been sued by such attorneys or which have faced broad Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigations have learned, however, such assumptions are often not well founded.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.