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.

Features

Previous <b>Practice Tips</b> have discussed the usefulness of the Internet in locating expert witnesses and in researching medical issues present in your product liability case. (See February 2002 <b>Practice Tip</b> '<i>Search the Internet for Medical Experts</i>' and March 2002 <b>Practice Tip</b> '<i>Make use of Internet Medical Sites</i>'). Here is yet another way to use the Internet to your advantage in product liability litigation: Use it to locate and obtain old or otherwise difficult-to-obtain physical and documentary evidence.

After spending 4 years in prison for allegedly sexually abusing his children, a Leesburg, VA, attorney was recently acquitted of the charges in what may be Virginia's first case in which the susceptibility of children to suggestion played a major role.

Features

In what has been referred to as 'an extraordinary application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to a family court matter,' the New York Family Court, Albany County, has ruled that a mother who absconded with her child has no right to seek relief from an order awarding temporary custody to the putative father.

Features

Tort reform has been heavily discussed and debated over the last twenty years. Any reform will have an impact on product liability litigation. If one looks over the past two decades, three criteria suggest what initiatives might be successful for federal civil justice reform in 2003. First, there has to be a real problem; second, a clear need for federal action; and third, a fair bill that is in the interests of the public and not a mere bailout for wrongdoers.

Features

Before 1985, there was no way to attach the assets in a qualified pension plan for a spouse in a divorce proceeding. While a state court may have awarded a portion of the benefit, a plan administrator could not comply based on the federal laws governing pension plans (there were some exceptions for benefits already in pay status). The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 altered that by adding to the Internal Revenue Code ' 414(p), which allows qualified pension plans to divide plan assets if ordered through a properly drafted Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The rules surrounding QDROs are complex; guidelines now abound, including guidance from both the IRS and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. What follows are some tips to assist drafters in avoiding common traps in these subtle documents.