Case Notes
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
A Sample of Effective <i>Voir Dire</i>
In Parts One and Two of this article, we discussed the strategies involved in deciding when to question the opposing party's expert; during preliminary <i>voir dire</i> or during cross examination. We noted that, in a jury trial, it is usually prudent to wait until cross-examination to attack the expert, so that the jury can see where the holes in the witness's qualifications and conclusions are. But sometimes, questioning during <i>voir dire</i> is preferable, especially when the result is likely to be the witness disqualification to testify as an expert.
A Call for Continued State Law Tort Reform
The recent federal trial court decision in <i>Dusek v. Pfizer Inc.</i>, Civil Action No. H-02-3559 (S.D. Tex. 2/20/04) dismissing plaintiffs' products liability claims against Pfizer in connection with the prescription drug Zoloft' on the ground of conflict preemption has given the pharmaceutical industry some hope that compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations will afford protection from common law failure-to-warn claims. The court granted summary judgment on the ground that a cause of action based on the plaintiff's proposed additional warning to the product label that Zoloft can cause suicidal ideation would conflict with the FDA's decision not to add such a warning because no causal link had in fact been established and it would in effect be false and misleading in violation of federal law. This should not deter continued efforts to obtain tort reform at the state level, however, where the continued influx of pharmaceutical product liability claims continues to burden courts and the pharmaceutical industry.
Expert Witness Liability: An Expanding Field
Expert witnesses have become a necessity in virtually all litigation, from medical malpractice to products liability to family law cases. Technical understanding of disputes is required for juror determination in this increasingly technical world. Damages need to be calculated using expert data; professional standards and their application to any medical malpractice action require expert opinion. But what happens when the side hiring the expert loses, or the independent evaluation doesn't come up with the hoped-for answer? Increasingly, what happens is the disappointed party sues the expert. In some cases, the experts have immunity to lawsuit, but in an increasing number of instances, they simply do not.
What Should You Know About the Rules of Evidence?
In last month's issue, we discussed the fact that bankruptcy lawyers may think they do not have to worry about the rules of evidence ' and we then went on to prove otherwise. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to most issues that arise in bankruptcy cases, according to Rule 9017 of the Federal rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. We discussed two of the four useful subjects under these rules: attorney-client privilege, and attorney work-product doctrine. Part Two of this article, below, discusses settlement offers and affidavits.
The Final Pieces of the Trigger and Allocation Puzzle in New York
With the flurry of major insurance decisions pertaining to long-tail tort claims in the early 1990s, practitioners appear to take New York law largely for granted when assessing trigger and allocation issues. True enough, the basics are now "well settled": an "injury in fact" trigger (<i>American Home Products Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 748 F.2d 760 (2nd Cir. 1984) ("<i>AHP</i>")); an emphatic rejection of the so-called "all sums" approach to allocation (<i>Consolidated Edison Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.</i>, 746 N.Y.S.2d 622 (N.Y. 2002)); and adoption of a <i>pro rata</i> methodology, (<i>Stonewall Insurance Company v. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation</i> 73 F.3d 1178, 1192 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1995) (citing <i>Owens-Illinois v. United Ins. Co.</i>, 138 N.J. 437 (N.J. 1994)); <i>Con Ed</i>, 746 N.Y.S.2d 622). All that said, we expect to see highly significant elaborations or refinements of the real world meaning of "injury in fact," and these open issues may have consequences for a wide range of major claims.
