Day on Torts

August 7, 2005

Safe Roads Save Lives

There is a new study out that maintains that relatively minor changes in highway design can say lives.

The study, by the Insurance Information Institute, explains that “urban roads ‘weren’t built to accommodate today’s heavy traffic. They’ve evolved as traffic has increased, and they haven’t always evolved in the best way to enhance safety and ensure a smooth flow of traffic.'” A news report about the study says that “the majority of traffic fatalities happen on rural roads, but safety experts say urban arteries remain dangerous. About 8,000 traffic fatalities and more than 1 million injuries occur annually on urban roads.”

The article gives several examples of how spending a relatively small amount of money can improve safety.

August 6, 2005

A New York Times Review of the Texas Vioxx Trial

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The NYT has done a review of the testimony to date in the Texas Vioxx trial. The Times concludes that the plaintiff has the upper hand, which one would hope would be true since the defense has not put on its case yet but is still good news for the plaintiff.

The article reviews some of the testimony. For example, consider this excerpt:

Mr. Lanier later asked Dr. Nies [a retired Merck scientist involved in the Vioxx project] about a contract proposal in which Merck had offered to pay researchers at Harvard $200,000 to lead a study that would have directly examined Vioxx’s heart risks. Dr. Nies said the study would have been unethical, which is why the study was ultimately scrapped.

August 5, 2005

Business Litigation Blog

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Have you had the opportunity to check out our Business Litigation Blog yet? It is full of information for those of us who involved in commmerical disputes.

For example, here is a link to a post on the issue of when attorneys’ fees must be litigated.

August 5, 2005

Vioxx Trial – Plaintiff Rests

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Plaintiff closed her case yesterday in the Texas Vioxx trial, and Merck called its first witness, a researcher.

One of Merck’s arguments is that the decedent was a smoker. His widow testified that he had not smoked in 15 years.

I assume that Merck has at least one defense better than that one.

August 4, 2005

Anthrax Scare and Defamation

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Remember the anthrax scare in the months following the 9/11 attacks? Remember Mr. Z? If you don’t, this opinion will refresh your recollection.

Mr. Z was named in some New York Times articles and did not appreciate being called a terrorist. He sued, had his case dismissed, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial.

He will get his day in court. I wonder if the NYT will be forced to reveal its source(s) for the stories?

August 4, 2005

Lawsuit Against the Vatican

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

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.

August 4, 2005

Davidson County Building Codes

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Here is a link to the building codes that are supposed to be followed in Davidson County.

August 4, 2005

MSDS

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

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

August 3, 2005

Frivilious Medical Malpractice Case

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Click here to read about yet another example of a greedy trial lawyer filing a frivilous lawsuit for a greedy plaintiff.

August 3, 2005

Rule 407 – Subsequent Remedial Measures

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

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.