|
Keep good science in toxic tort
cases
Steve Baughman Jensen
You can use recent changes in the American Law Institute’s
Restatement (Third) of Torts to correct judges’
misunderstanding of scientific reasoning and methods.
Section 28’s new Comment c can help you persuade
the court to admit scientific evidence that it otherwise
might have dismissed as unreliable.
Focus on science, not checklists
Bert Black
Gone are the days when you could grasp just enough of
the science in your cases to meet the Daubert admissibility
standards. To get this evidence past the judicial gatekeepers,
you must master the science and then help the court navigate
this difficult terrain.
Testing the limits of genetic
technology
Interview with Mildred Cho
Advances in DNA technology are welcomed by researchers
seeking cures for genetic diseases and ways to prevent
birth defects, as well as those charged with solving crimes
and defending the wrongly accused. But these technologies
also raise concerns about privacy, genetic profiling,
and genetic “engineering.” The associate director
of Stanford University’s Center for Biomedical Ethics
discusses some legal and ethical implications of scientific
progress.
Deliver a Daubert-proof
expert report
Martha K. Wivell
Reduce the chance that a Daubert challenge will
sidetrack you at trial: Require your expert to prepare
a thorough, well-documented report that resembles the
formal, meticulous style of a master’s thesis. A
report that includes a detailed explanation of the expert’s
credentials and methodologies, plus citations to proper
authorities, will show the court that your expert’s
conclusions are credible.
|
Features
When the specialist can’t
specialize anymore
D. Frank Winkles and Claude H. Tison Jr.
A well-orchestrated bad-faith case can hold liable insurers
who refuse “own occupation” disability benefits
to professionals who can no longer perform their jobs.
To overcome the “general business practice”
requirement, look to evidence presented in earlier cases
to show that the insurer’s questionable claims-handling
practice is business as usual.
Why do jurors blame the victim?
Quentin Brogdon
Jurors sometimes find fault with the plaintiff to distance
themselves psychologically from his or her fate. This
“defensive attribution” can skew jurors’
reactions to injury and misfortune and turn them against
your client. Know how to counter this natural response
to suffering.
|
News & Trends
Suits blast sand suppliers for failing
to warn of silica hazard
Eleventh Circuit revives disability
bias lawsuits against states
California protects ‘black
box’ auto-crash data from disclosure
Court OKs fraud claim by worker’s
daughter with birth defects
Police need warrant to use global
positioning system
Departments
President’s page
ATLA and the party of Lincoln
Washington focus
GAO report refutes malpractice insurance
‘crisis’
Supreme Court review
The ‘fruits’ of Miranda
violations
Reflections
What a difference a word makes
Hearsay
Books
Environmental Justice in America
by Edwardo Lao Rhodes
The Hearsay Rule
by G. Michael Fenner
Classifieds
Classifieds
|
