DOCSLIB.ORG

A Framework for Toxic Tort Litigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Framework for Toxic Tort Litigation A FRAMEWORK FOR TOXIC TORT LITIGATION Joe G. Hollingsworth Katharine R. Latimer Hollingsworth LLP Foreword Dorothy P. Watson Vice President and General Counsel Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION Washington, D.C. This Monograph is one of a series of original papers published by the Legal Studies Division of the Washington Legal Foundation. Through this and other publications, WLF seeks to provide the national legal community with legal studies on a variety of timely public policy issues. Additional copies of this Monograph may be obtained by writing to the Publications Department, Washington Legal Foundation, 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Other recent studies in the WLF Monograph series include: Science Through the Looking-Glass: The Manipulation of “Addiction” & Its Influence over Obesity Policy by Dr. John C. Luik. Foreword by Daniel J. Popeo, Washington Legal Foundation. 2007. Library of Congress No. 2007931992. Ideology Masked As Scientific Truth: The Debate About Advertising And Children by Dr. John C. Luik. Foreword by Professor Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Law School. 2006. Library of Congress No. 2006927394 Waiver Of The Attorney-Client Privilege: A Balanced Approach by The Honorable Dick Thornburgh, Kirkpatrck & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP. Foreword by The Honorable John Engler, President and CEO, National Association of Manufacturers. Introduction by Laura Stein, Senior Vice President – General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, The Clorox Company. 2006. Library of Congress No. 2006927395. Exporting Precaution: How Europe’s Risk-Free Regulatory Agenda Threatens American Free Enterprise by Lawrence A. Kogan, Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, Inc. Commentary by The Honorable James C. Greenwood, President & CEO, Biotechnology Industry Organization; Professor William H. Lash, III, George Mason University School of Law; Graham Mather, Esq., President, European Policy Forum; and Professor Gary E. Marchant, The College of Law at Arizona State University. 2005. Library of Congress No. 200593354. Guarding The Crown Jewels: A Guide To Protecting Your Trade Secrets by Arthur J. Schwab and David J. Porter, Buchanan Ingersoll. Foreword by Laura Stein, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, H.J. Heinz Company. Introduction by John K. Williamson, Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property, PPG Industries. 2002. Library of Congress No. 200201077. 8 2008 Washington Legal Foundation Library of Congress Control No. 2008923597 A FRAMEWORK FOR TOXIC TORT LITIGATION Joe G. Hollingsworth Katharine R. Latimer Hollingsworth LLP Foreword Dorothy P. Watson Vice President and General Counsel Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION Washington, D.C. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Joe G. Hollingsworth is a partner at the Washington, D.C. law firm Hollingsworth LLP. Currently in his thirty-fourth year of private practice, Mr. Hollingsworth specializes in complex trials and appeals and leads a practice of eighty attorneys. Over 100 opinions arising from his cases are published in the federal and state reporters. He has been recognized by THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL three times for the year’s Top Ten Defense Wins—in 1998 for Warren v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., in 2001 for Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., and in 2005 for Crowson v. C.R. Bard, Inc. He defends cases involving pharmaceutical and medical device product liability, toxic and environmental torts, rail and other common carrier torts, and consumer product liability, and he prosecutes and defends complex federal claims involving the government. He has conducted over twenty jury trials on behalf of corporate defendants, each lasting from two weeks to over three and one-half months. He has argued in the United States Supreme Court, in most U.S. Circuit courts, before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and in many state supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts. In June 2004, Mr. Hollingsworth conducted the first jury trial in the country involving allegations that hernia repair mesh—used in approximately 700,000 hernia surgeries per year in the U.S. alone—can cause infertility. The Austin, Texas federal jury deliberated for 58 minutes, returning a unanimous verdict for the nation’s largest medical device manufacturer. Mr. Hollingsworth’s next most recent trial win was in September 2003, when his client was awarded a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case in the first Lamisil® (prescription antifungal) jury trial in the country. Representing pharmaceutical manufacturer Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, he tried the case before a federal jury in Charleston, South Carolina. In a recent post-trial victory (General Elec. Co. v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 608 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. 2005)), Mr. Hollingsworth’s client, General Electric, eliminated collateral tort liability for property damage due to the release of a persistent contaminant. Based on 100-year-old national precedents, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on questions certified from the Eleventh Circuit, leading to the vacatur of a $20 million verdict in a case tried by another firm. Mr. Hollingsworth’s group represents manufacturers and other corporations in the defense of hundreds of cases nationwide involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices, see, e.g., Rider/Siharath v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga 2001), aff’d, 295 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2002) (Daubert summary judgment); Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 95 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (W.D. Okla. 2000), aff’d, 289 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2002) (Daubert summary judgment); Glastetter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (E.D. Mo. 2000), aff’d, 252 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2001) (Daubert summary judgment); foreign and domestic use of herbicides and pesticides, including DDT, heptachlor/chlordane, and chlorpyrofos, see, e.g., Davidson v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 834 P.2d 931(Nev. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1051 (1993) (first state supreme court post-Cippolone FIFRA preemption decision) and Conde v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 804 F. Supp. 972 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff’d, 24 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1994) (first post-Daubert summary judgment opinion in 6th Cir.); manufacturing-use chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) and solvents, see, e.g., Schudel v. General Electric Co., 120 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1997) (overturning $14 million jury verdict on Daubert grounds); asbestos- containing products; and benzene, see, e.g., Bly v. Tri-Continental Indus., 663 A.3d 1232 (D.C. 1995) (affirming summary judgment in leukemia cases). Mr. Hollingsworth and his group also counsel clients with respect to due diligence and insurance coverage issues relating to toxics liabilities. For over twenty years, Mr. Hollingsworth also has served as lead national counsel for several major manufacturers in the defense of serial toxic product claims involving thousands of claimants and various pharmaceutical and chemical products. See, e.g., In Re Consolidated Parlodel Litig., 22 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 1998) (deconsolidating claims on forum non conveniens grounds). In one such case, in an 11- week jury trial involving an incident featured in a “60 Minutes” episode about national serial litigation against his chemical manufacturer client, Mr. Hollingsworth’s client won a defense verdict profiled in the THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. See Jones v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 625 N.Y.S.2d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) (affirming denial of motion for new trial). As national trial counsel in various serial litigation involving chemical and pharmaceutical products, Mr. Hollingsworth helped establish, and works closely with, the Firm’s highly-regarded network of regional and local counsel and consultants. Mr. Hollingsworth’s practice also emphasizes the pursuit of claims ii against the government on behalf of contractors and others. He represented Glendale Federal Bank, and successfully argued its breach- of-contract case before the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark “Winstar” litigation, see 518 U.S. 839 (1996), an oral argument featured in THE AMERICAN LAWYER, and a case that recently concluded with the award of $387 million to his client Glendale. On a national basis, he has pursued indemnity claims against the government on behalf of two former asbestos-containing product manufacturers. In such federal claims litigation, Mr. Hollingsworth has appeared in numerous specialized forums, including the en banc Federal Circuit. Mr. Hollingsworth frequently lectures, and is consulted by media interests, about litigation strategies in complex litigation. See, e.g., NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (March 19, 2001) (strategies for successful Daubert challenges). He is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Litigation Center’s Constitutional and Administrative Law Committee, a group that helps the Chamber select appropriate cases for amicus participation in the highest appellate courts in the country. He has appeared frequently on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution as a lecturer in federal and state judge educational workshops and related seminars. He is also a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council, an elite group of the most experienced and talented product liability defense attorneys in the nation, as well as the Defense Research Institute (DRI). Mr. Hollingsworth graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1974, and obtained his B.A., with distinction, from DePauw University
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Getting to Causation in Toxic Tort Cases
    GETTING TO CAUSATION IN TOXIC TORT CASES David E. Bernstein, Professor, George Mason University School of Law Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 51-74, Fall 2008 George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 09-66 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1524552 Getting to Causation in Toxic Tort Cases David E. Bernstein† INTRODUCTION Since the issue first arose in earnest in the 1970s, courts have struggled to create rules for causation in toxic tort cases1 that are both consistent with longstanding tort principles and fair to all parties. Faced with conflicting and often novel expert testimony, scientific uncertainty, the gap between legal and scientific culture, and unprecedented claims for massive damages, common-law courts needed time to adjust and accommodate themselves to the brave new world of toxic tort litigation. Eventually, however, courts around the country reached a broad consensus on what is required for a toxic tort plaintiff to meet his or her burden of proof. While there is a voluminous scholarly literature on various aspects of toxic tort litigation, this Article’s unique contribution is to articulate the new consensus on causation standards, document and criticize the various ways plaintiffs attempt to evade these standards, and defend the courts’ adherence to traditional notions of causation against their critics. Part I of this Article explains that to prove causation in a toxic tort case, a plaintiff must show that the substance in question is capable, in general, of causing the injury alleged, and also that exposure to the substance more likely than not caused his injury.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Genetic Evidence to Defend Against Toxic Tort Claims—Part I
    The Use of Genetic Evidence to Defend Against Toxic Tort Claims—Part I By Susan E. Brice and Dr. Whitney V. Christian “Most common complex diseases are believed to be the disease. The final parts of the article, which will appear result of the combined effect of genes, environmental fac- in upcoming issues of Intellectual Property & Technolo- tors and their interactions.”1 gy Law Journal, will explore genetic data and toxic tort Toxic tort cases generally involve claims that an individ- law, genetic biomarkers, genomics and toxicogenomics, ual was harmed as a consequence of exposure to a chemi- epigenetics, and tools for understanding causation at the cal(s) (including a medication). These cases can be particu- genomic level. larly difficult to litigate because of the challenges presented by demonstrating or disproving causation. Because we do The Toxic Tort Case not fully understand the extent to which a chemical expo- “The term ‘toxic tort’ refers to circumstances under sure can affect a particular individual, experts typically of- which plaintiffs attempt to prove that they suffered harm fer opinions based on the general risk posed to the plaintiff as a result of exposure to a substance.”2 The term applies in by the exposure in question. Judge and juries find this lack a “variety of cases, ranging from exposure to harmful exter- of plaintiff-specific evidence unsatisfying. nal substances, such as asbestos or nuclear material, to the This multi-part article explores how genetic and epigen- adverse affects [sic] of substances deliberately ingested into etic biomarkers of cause and effect can be used to fill this the body, including prescribed medicines.”3 Accordingly, gap for defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Torts: Workable Defenses Available to the Corporate Defendant
    Volume 28 Issue 6 Article 7 1982 Toxic Torts: Workable Defenses Available to the Corporate Defendant Robert St. Leger Goggin Thomas A. Brophy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Robert S. Goggin & Thomas A. Brophy, Toxic Torts: Workable Defenses Available to the Corporate Defendant, 28 Vill. L. Rev. 1208 (1982). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol28/iss6/7 This Symposia is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Goggin and Brophy: Toxic Torts: Workable Defenses Available to the Corporate Defenda [Vol. 28: p. 1208 TOXIC TORTS: WORKABLE DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT ROBERT ST. LEGER GOGGINt THOMAS A. BROPHYt TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREFACE ............................................... 1209 II. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1210 III. THE OBVIOUS DEFENSES ............................... 1216 A. Statute of Limitations ................................ 1216 B. M edical Causation ................................... 1226 C. Product Zdentication ................................. 1235 IV. THE PRODUCT-RELATED DEFENSES .................... 1244 A. Defective/Unsafe Products ............................ 1245 B. Duty to Warn/State
    [Show full text]
  • Impassive Modernism in Arabic and Hebrew Literatures
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Against the Flow: Impassive Modernism in Arabic and Hebrew Literatures A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Comparative Literature by Shir Alon 2017 © Copyright by Shir Alon 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Against the Flow: Impassive Modernism in Arabic and Hebrew Literatures by Shir Alon Doctor of Philosophy in Comparative Literature University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Gil Hochberg, Co-Chair Professor Nouri Gana, Co-Chair Against the Flow: Impassive Modernism in Arabic and Hebrew Literatures elaborates two interventions in contemporary studies of Middle Eastern Literatures, Global Modernisms, and Comparative Literature: First, the dissertation elaborates a comparative framework to read twentieth century Arabic and Hebrew literatures side by side and in conversation, as two literary cultures sharing, beyond a contemporary reality of enmity and separation, a narrative of transition to modernity. The works analyzed in the dissertation, hailing from Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, and Tunisia, emerge against the Hebrew and Arabic cultural and national renaissance movements, and the establishment of modern independent states in the Middle East. The dissertation stages encounters between Arabic and Hebrew literary works, exploring the ii parallel literary forms they develop in response to shared temporal narratives of a modernity outlined elsewhere and already, and in negotiation with Orientalist legacies. Secondly, the dissertation develops a generic-formal framework to address the proliferation of static and decadent texts emerging in a cultural landscape of national revival and its aftermaths, which I name impassive modernism. Viewed against modernism’s emphatic features, impassive modernism is characterized by affective and formal investment in stasis, immobility, or immutability: suspension in space or time and a desire for nonproductivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Tort and the Articulation of Environmental Risk
    Law Text Culture Volume 12 The Protection of Law Article 6 2008 Toxic Tort and the Articulation of Environmental Risk J. Goodie Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc Recommended Citation Goodie, J., Toxic Tort and the Articulation of Environmental Risk, Law Text Culture, 12, 2008. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol12/iss1/6 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Toxic Tort and the Articulation of Environmental Risk Abstract Ten women who work in ABC television news studios and offices inoowong T Brisbane Australia, have developed invasive breast cancer within a relatively short period of time, one of the first diagnoses being in 2002 (Swan 2007). The unhappy coincidence of ten women in the same workplace developing breast cancer is disturbingly insidious. Initial investigations were not able to identify a cause or explanation. A subsequent, very thorough inquiry led by Professor Bruce Armstrong has not been able to identify the specific cause of the breast cancer either, but it has found that the Brisbane ABC studios present an unequivocal risk to health. The incidence of breast cancer in women working at the studios was not considered random or coincidental, it was found to be ten times the expected rate (Armstrong 2006). The studios have now been abandoned, and all ten cases of breast cancer have been designated a rare ‘cancer cluster’ (Swan 2007). This journal article is available in Law Text Culture: https://ro.uow.edu.au/ltc/vol12/iss1/6 Toxic Tort and the Articulation of Environmental Risk Jo Goodie Introduction — Our risk anxiety made real Ten women who work in ABC television news studios and offices in Toowong Brisbane Australia, have developed invasive breast cancer within a relatively short period of time, one of the first diagnoses being in 2002 (Swan 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Equifax Inc. Securities Litigation 17-CV-03463-Consolidated Class
    Case 1:17-cv-03463-TWT Document 49 Filed 04/23/18 Page 1 of 198 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE EQUIFAX INC. SECURITIES Consolidated Case No. LITIGATION 1:17-cv-03463-TWT CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS Case 1:17-cv-03463-TWT Document 49 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................2 II. PARTIES .......................................................................................................10 A. Lead Plaintiff ...................................................................................... 10 B. Defendants .......................................................................................... 10 1. Equifax, Inc. ............................................................................. 10 2. Individual Defendants .............................................................. 12 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................13 IV. SUMMARY OF THE FRAUD .....................................................................13 A. Equifax’s Business is to Collect and Sell Sensitive Personal Information About Global Consumers ............................................... 13 B. Defendants Knew that Securing the Information Equifax Collected Was Critical to the Company’s Business ........................... 16 C. Defendants Issue Statements Touting Cybersecurity, Compliance with
    [Show full text]
  • The Revitalization of Hazardous Activity Strict Liability
    University of Arkansas · System Division of Agriculture [email protected] · (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article The Revitalization of Hazardous Activity Strict Liability by Virginia E. Nolan & Edmund Ursin Originally published in NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW 65 N.C. L. REV. 257 (1987) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org THE REVITALIZATION OF HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY STRICT LIABILITY VIRGINIA E. NOLANt EDMUND URSINt Guided by the policies that sparked the strict products liability revolution ofthe past quarter century, courts today are fashioning a doc­ trine ofhazardous activity strict liability with far-reaching implications. Although many observers have equated this doctrine with the Restate­ ment of Torts and have viewed it as moribund, Professors Nolan and Ursin argue that courts are covertly and overtly rejecting the Restate­ ment approach and that this strict liability doctrine is alive and well, with a variety ofpotential applications for attorneys and courts to con­ sider. The authors trace these developments, discuss the contours ofthis doctrine, and suggest especially promising new applications. I. INTRODUCTION During the past quarter century courts have embraced strict tort liability in an unprecedented fashion. Premised on articulated concerns of fairness, safety, the compensation of accident victims, and the spreading of accident costs, strict products liability has swept the nation. 1 Since the California Supreme Court's pioneering pronouncement of strict tort liability for defective products in its 1963 decision in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.,2 courts, commenta­ tors, and attorneys have considered whether strict products liability represents a precursor to a wider enterprise liability, and, if so, what form that wider enter­ prise liability might take.
    [Show full text]
  • Inherently Dangerous Or Inherently Difficult?
    Campbell Law Review Volume 17 Article 4 Issue 3 Summer 1995 January 1995 Inherently Dangerous or Inherently Difficult? Interpretations and Criticisms of Imposing Vicarious Liability on General Contractors for Injuries Suffered as a Result of Work Performed by Independent Contractors: Hooper v. Pizzagalli Construction Company Mary Margaret McEachern Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Mary Margaret McEachern, Inherently Dangerous or Inherently Difficult? Interpretations and Criticisms of Imposing Vicarious Liability on General Contractors for Injuries Suffered as a Result of Work Performed by Independent Contractors: Hooper v. Pizzagalli Construction Company, 17 Campbell L. Rev. 483 (1995). This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. McEachern: Inherently Dangerous or Inherently Difficult? Interpretations and NOTES INHERENTLY DANGEROUS OR INHERENTLY DIFFI- CULT? INTERPRETATIONS AND CRITICISMS OF IMPOSING VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON GENERAL CON- TRACTORS FOR INJURIES SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF WORK PERFORMED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRAC- TORS: Hooper v. Pizzagalli Construction Company I. INTRODUCTION Under the rule of respondeat superior, a master is liable for the torts his servants commit in the scope of their employment.' An exception to this rule exists, however, when the "servant" is not actually a "servant" in the true sense of the word. Courts gen- erally classify such a person or organization as an independent contractor, and will not generally impose vicarious liability on their employers for injuries arising out of their work.2 This Note focuses on a major exception to this exception: courts will impose vicarious liability on employers of independent contractors for injuries arising from any employment involving inherently dan- gerous work.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigation Toxic Tort Experience
    LITIGATION TOXIC TORT EXPERIENCE Babst Calland’s toxic tort litigation experience includes representation of: • Coal-fired generation facilities in two separate class actions seeking damages for diminution of property value and medical monitoring as a result of exposure to alleged air emissions. • A coal-fired generation facility in a claim by a minor for numerous health problems allegedly resulting from exposure to heavy metals in air and soot. • A coal-fired generation facility in multiple individual claims for health problems, including skin disease, lung disease and heart disease resulting from alleged exposure to air emissions. • A natural gas compressor station operator in a claim seeking damages for diminution of property value and medical monitoring as a result of alleged exposure to water and air contamination. • A natural gas driller in two separate actions seeking damages for diminution of property value and medical monitoring as a result of alleged contamination of drinking water wells. • A natural gas exploration company in multiple claims seeking damages for diminution of property value and alleged barium poisoning as a result of alleged contamination of drinking water wells. • A chemical manufacturer for personal injuries allegedly related to chemical exposure. • A chemical manufacturer in claims for diminution of property value as a result of exposure to alleged air pollution from an adjacent chemical production facility. • An electronics manufacturer for alleged lead poisoning from the manufacturer’s production process. • A manufacturing company in several leukemia death claims related to alleged exposure to hard metal air emissions. • A major industrial company in three individual personal injury claims and 20 homeowner claims seeking damages for diminution of property value, fear of cancer and medical monitoring as a result of alleged nuclear and chemical contamination in soil and groundwater.
    [Show full text]
  • Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities
    #52 3/26/69 Memorandum 69-53 Subject: Study 52 - Sovereign Immunity (Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities) The attached tentative recommendation attempts to implement the policy decision made at the March, 1969, meeting to apply the common law rules relating to ultrahazardous liability to public entities. In reviewing this recommendation, the staff believes the following items should be noted. The underlying policy seems sound. ay definition an ultrahazardous activity while having a certain social utility involves a high degree of risk of serious harm to person and property that cannot be removed by careful conduct. It seems tha~ regardless of who is conducting the activity, the enterprise should pay its own way. As applied to a public entity, the policy is closely analogous to that underlying inverse and direct condemnation, .:!:.:!!' that the individual must not be required to contribute more than his proper share to the public undertaking. The theory in both situations scarcely seems subject to dispute. In practice, one of the first questions will be what is an ultra- hazardous activity. California has clearly adopted the Restatement definition that, "an activi ty is ultrahazardous if it (a) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care, and (b) is not a matter of common usage." See Iuthringer v. Moore, 31 Cal.2d 489, 190 P.2d 1 (1948). The California experience indicates that blasting in a developed area--~, Balding v. Stutsman, 246 Cal. App.2d 559, 54 Cal. Rptr. 711 (1966--, rocket testing--Smith v.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee News
    SumSummermer 20 201917 COMMITEECOMMITTEE NEWS NEWS ToxicCorporate Torts Counsel and Environmental Committee Law The purpose of a newsletter is to provide specialized information to a tar- geted audience. Newsletters can be a great way to market your product or “Customer quotes, service, and also create credibility and build awareness for you and the called “pull quotes,” are services you provide. Use positive customer pull-quotes as eye-catching an excellent way to Legionella:but subtle marketing. The Inconspicuous Path demonstrate your suc- SinceTips its for discovery Producing in 1976, Legionnaires’a Newsletter Disease has garnered national attention Frankcess Pagone, and put PhD emphasis from the general public and stakeholders, including building owners, facility RHP Risk Management Inc. operators,Every time medical you produce professionals, your newsletter, risk managers, ask yourself:insurers, and attorneys. on your values. They Jacob Persky, MPH, CIH OutbreaksQ: Who are of Legionnaires’our readers? Disease frequently make headline news and result in RHPalso Risk add Management visual interest Inc. damageA: Existing to reputation, customers loss and of potential future business, customers, and costly litigation. Newsworthy to your newsletter...” high-dollar demands or settlements ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions Frank Pagone, PhD is a Q: What will our readers want to know about our business? Senior Associate at RHP Risk of dollars have graced news headlines. Within the past year, news coverage of - Carlos Vivanco A: Timely, helpful, problem solving information. Management Inc., Chicago, IL Legionnaires’ Disease has implicated a casino resort in Las Vegas, a hotel in the UK, He can be reached at fpagone@ a VA hospital in Illinois, federal buildings in Canada, and the municipal water system rhprisk.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Tort Litigation Update Summer 2012 Wglaw.Com
    TOXIC TORT LITIGATION UPDATE SUMMER 2012 WGLAW.COM The Toxic Tort Law and Litigation Practice Group provide guidance and representation to clients involved in “long tail” claims. These claims relate to exposure to asbestos, lead paint, mold, occupational heavy metals and solvents, silica, EIFS, sick buildings and indoor air quality, mercury, and inks and dyes. Our representation includes acting as Local and National counsel in State and Federal courts, and involves both individual and mass toxic exposure claims. Many of our attorneys have written and spoke to insurance and industry groups throughout the Country on various toxic tort issues. PROCEDURE AND FUTURE OF FEDERAL CHANGES TO MDL 875 (ASBESTOS) PROGRAM PHARMACEUTICAL Recent Changes were made to the MDL 875 (Asbestos) program instituted by the Panel MASS TORT AND on Multidistrict Litigation, based on the suggestion of Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, who runs that program. The Panel has decided to no longer allow transferring “tag-along ASBESTOS PROGRAMS actions” to the MDL 875. Judge Robreno justified his decision by citing that the IN PHILADELPHIA backlog of cases in the MDL 875 has largely been eliminated. Eleven jurisdictions or categories of cases already in the MDL 875 program, however, were excluded from STATE COURT Judge Robreno’s suggestion, and will continue as before. There has been an increase in filings for asbestos-related cases in Philadelphia EXTENT OF TWO DISEASE RULE (ASBESTOS) County by 143% over the last five years. (Hence, Philadelphia making #1 on this ESTABLISHED (PENNSYLVANIA) year’s “Judicial Hellholes” list!) That dramatic increase occurred after the In a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, the Court established the extent of the Court’s leadership accepted claims from “two-disease rule” in asbestos matters.
    [Show full text]