One lawyer has taken a priest sex abuse case to the top – he has sued the Vatican.
A well-known Louisville lawyer filed suit against the Vatican, saying that it knew of the abusive activities of a priest. The Vatican is trying to get the case dismissed.
Here is a link to the building codes that are supposed to be followed in Davidson County.
Do you have a potential case where you need to know something about a chemical substance? Look first to MSDS – Material Safety Data Sheets. These documents may be found here.
MSDS have lots of information, including …
Section 1 – Product and Company Identification
Section 2 – Compositon/Information on Ingredients
Section 3 – Hazards Identification Including Emergency Overview
Section 4 – First Aid Measures
Section 5 – Fire Fighting Measures
Section 6 – Accidental Release Measures
Section 7 – Handling and Storage
Section 8 – Exposure Controls & Personal Protection
Section 9 – Physical & Chemical Properties
Section 10 – Stability & Reactivity Data
Section 11 – Toxicological Information
Section 12 – Ecological Information
Section 13 – Disposal Considerations
Section 14 – MSDS Transport Information
Section 15 – Regulatory Information
Section 16 – Other Information
Click here to read about yet another example of a greedy trial lawyer filing a frivilous lawsuit for a greedy plaintiff.
Subject to several exceptions, Rule 407 prohibits the introduction into evidence of subsequent remedial measures. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has just joined several other circuits in holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the remedial measures are made by a third party.
Judge Smith wrote that “The rule recognizes that manufacturers will be discouraged from improving the safety of their products if such changes can be introduced as evidence that their previous designs were defective.” He went on to say that “this policy is not implicated where the evidence concerns remedial measures taken by an individual or entity that is not a party to the lawsuit.” Judge Smith explained that every federal circuit to address the issue — the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th — has likewise concluded that Rule 407 does not apply to subsequent remedial measures taken by a nonparty.
They are called OSIs – other similar incidents. Plaintiffs try to get them admitted into evidence in products liability cases to show evidence of defect and knowledge of defect. The incidents must be “substantially similar” and there is (almost) always a fight over what falls within that catergory.
Here is a recent opinion from the Eighth Circuit that upheld the admissibility of OSIs in a products case involving use of a rachet system on a motor vehicle carrier.
Good news. Overall, the Department of Transportation said alcohol-related fatalities fell 2.4 percent, from 17,105 in 2003 to 16,694 in 2004. 42,636 people died on the nation’s highways in 2004, down 248 – or 0.6 percent – from the previous year. Read a more complete summary of the data here.
There was some bad news. Motorcycle death rates increased for the seventh straight year. Rollover deaths also increased.
I would like to think that the tort system has contributed to a decline in the death rate. Highways and vehicles are safer in part because litigation has forced the issue with government agencies and manufacturers and brought problems to light. To be sure, consumer groups have also played a role in advocating for better roads and vehicles, but the tort system provides the economic incentive for people to do the right thing.
What do you do when you represent people who have been exposed to a dangerous substance but to date have not experienced an injury? Some lawyers have brought what is known as a medical monitoring claim, asking that the defendant be required to pay money to monitor the health of the plaintiff to identify and then treat health problems related to the exposure.
Plaintiffs in that situation are in a tough spot. If they wait until they suffer an “injury” there will be an argument that a statute of limitations or a statute of repose has run. If they file suit too early the defendant argues that the plaintiffs have not been injured and therefore do not have standing to bring a claim.
What is the state of the law on this issue? The Supreme Court of Michigan has just ruled that plaintiffs may not bring this type of claim. In Henry v. The Dow Chemical Corp. plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed to dioxin and needed medical monitoring. Dioxin is known to cause cancer, liver disease, and birth defects. The State of Michigan determined that the most likely source of the contamination was Dow’s Midland plant.
I ran into fellow blogger David Swanner of the South Carolina Trial Law Blog in Toronto. He was kind enough to grab me as I was walking along oblivious to my surroundings and introduce himself. He has a great blog and a great collection of powerpoint presentations from various lawyers. He will give you a copy of the powerpoint presentations if you ask.
The Convention was a real treat. I have attended the last 21 ATLA Annual Conventions and I have learned many valuable things at each one of them. ATLA has a new commitment to educating the public of the value of the civil justice system. It will be a long, expensive process but, I suggest, one worth the effort. We have to win back the hearts and minds of the jurors.
If you represent plaintiffs and are not a member of ATLA you should join. Not only will you get a great return on your money, but you will also help support the good fight.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the state’s med mal cap, saying that even under the rational basis test the cap did not meet constitutional muster. The med mal insurances companies and the docs are upset. What the insurance companies and the doctors don’t understand is that rational basis does not mean “any ole reason that some lobbyist and pr flack can speculate about” – at least not to real judges who take their job as guardians of the right to trial by jury seriously.
